Preamble

PRAYERS

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Defence Sales Organisation

Northern Ireland

Airfields (Defence Systems)

Nuclear Capability

Iran (Arms Contracts)

Oman

Dartmoor (Storage of Dangerous Substances)

Royal Navy (Defence Capability)

Military Medal

Central Treaty Organisation

Hong Kong

Frigates (Amazon Class)

Polaris Missile (Test Firing)

Queen's Flight

NATO

TUC

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

TRADE UNIONS (SECRET BALLOTS)

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Orders of the Day — Clause 2

EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITS, & C.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3

PERIOD OF DETENTION OF UNCONVICTED PRISONERS

Orders of the Day — Clause 4

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES AND CRIMINAL DIETS

Orders of the Day — Clause 5

ARRANGEMENTS FOR COURT PROCEEDINGS DURING EMERGENCY PERIOD

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Clause 6

PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF OPERATION OF S. 17 OF STAMP ACT 1817, ETC.

New Clause 1

REFERRAL FROM CHILDREN'S HEARING

New Clause 4

PICKETING OF COURTS

Clause 5

ARRANGEMENTS FOR COURT PROCEEDINGS DURING EMERGENCY PERIOD

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (ENERGY POLICY)

KNOTTINGLEY (GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICE)

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Defence Sales Organisation

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Defence Sales Organisation.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): The Defence Sales Organisation continues to provide support, assistance and advice to British industry and the Royal ordnance factories on the promotion of overseas sales of defence equipment and associated services.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Defence Sales Organisation will not be used to sell discarded Iranian surplus Chieftain tanks to China? Does he acknowledge that Labour Party policy, which involves a switch from war production to peaceful production, should be implemented by producing a plan for that peaceful transition, in conjunction with the Department of Industry? Does he accept that recent statements by the Pope, for example, heartily endorse Labour Party policies? Can my right hon. Friend make a start by announcing the phased withdrawal of the Defence Sales Organisation?

Dr. Gilbert: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we have, as far as I know, received no request from China for tanks to be sold to them, so that point does not arise. As regards my hon. Friend's more general point, namely, the conversion of defence industries to peaceful production, no one would be happier than Defence Ministers if there were no need to produce military equipment on the present scale. Unfortunately, questions of this sort depend very much

on the progress of detente, and for the time being we need such defence production capability as we have in order to equip Her Majesty's Forces.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Does the Minister of State agree that this does not entirely depend on the progress of detente? Should he not point out to his exceedingly ill-informed hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that, under this Government, the number of unemployed is already 1,400,000? Therefore, to stop defence production would merely add to unemployment.

Dr. Gilbert: In the past I have given instruction to the right hon. Gentleman's then deputy to the effect that defence production was engaged in for the defence of this country and not as an employment-generating function. I regret to have to repeat that instruction to him.

Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would appear very strange to the neutral observer if Britain were supplying defence equipment to countries which we helped through the aid programmes of the Ministry of Overseas Development? Will my right hon. Friend liaise with his right hon. Friend to ensure that we do not find ourselves in the profoundly cynical position of following a policy of giving aid to the poorest countries and at the same time of supplying them with sophisticated military equipment?

Dr. Gilbert: I see nothing particularly inconsistent in those two activities. As I have said at this Dispatch Box on more than one occasion, I deplore the fact that the less developed countries find it necessary to spend such a large part of their scarce resources on defence equipment. I am sure that my hon. Friend and I are totally at one on that. However, the fact remains that they require this equipment, and when they wish to purchase it from us from time to time it produces jobs for our factories rather than the factories of other countries.

Mr. Banks: Concerning the contract for Iran, why is the Minister so reticent about providing us with details of the contracts at the Royal Ordnance Factory, Leeds, which now look like being lost? Does he recognise the importance of the jobs of the people working there and the need for continuity of production? Will he


consider what budget extensions may be necessary to allow the British Army to re-equip with a modern tank in the 1980s?

Dr. Gilbert: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are seized of the serious implications for the Royal Ordnance Factory, Leeds, of the ending of project 4030 for Iran. My right hon. Friend and I have already had discussions with the trade unions involved at national level, and I understand that local discussions are also taking place. I have also taken the initiative with ministerial colleagues in other Departments in attempting to find other work to go to the Royal Ordnance Factory, Leeds. I wholly share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is necessary for us to preserve a tank capability at Leeds in order to equip the British Army in the 1980s with what I believe will be one of the finest tanks in the world.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the work of the Armed Forces in support of the civil power in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): The Armed Forces' operations in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary continue to meet with success. The security forces have the ability to respond promptly and firmly to changes in the terrorist threat and their operations are contributing to the return to normality in the Province. A recent success was the joint RUC-Army operation in which more than 40 explosive devices were recovered from a house in Belfast.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not the mortar attack on Newtownhamilton suggest that, although there has been an improvement in police co-operation across the border, there is need for improved liaison between the security forces of the Republic and the kingdom generally? Can the Minister give any information about the type and origin of the mortars used?

Mr. Brown: Naturally, the Army seeks to ensure the safety of its bases at all times. Operations are mounted to this end, but it would not be in the interests of security to go into more detail at this stage. I am satisfied that we are doing all

that we reasonably can to protect our bases from terrorist attack. I am sure that the House will share by revulsion at this attack, as well as my sympathy with those involved and their relatives. Cross-border co-operation at the present time is better than it has ever been.

Mr. Powell: Will the Minister, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, do all in his power to rebut unfounded smears and allegations against the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, whether those are made inside or outside this House?

Mr. Brown: Yes. Some of the more or less slanderous allegations that have been made against the security forces in recent times are most unfortunate.

Mr. Goodhart: I join the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in hoping that the smears against the Armed Forces will now stop, but is not my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) right in suggesting that co-operation between our Army in Northern Ireland and the regular forces of the Republic is at a very low state indeed? Is there not room for substantial ministerial action to put this right? Is there any prospect of increased co-operation in the months to come?

Mr. Brown: As I have said, close links have been established between the police forces on both sides of the border to enable all elements of the security forces to act in concert. This works well. I understand that army-to-army contact is unacceptable to the Irish authorities. In the first place, the roles of the armies are not the same. However, in general, cross-border security co-operation has improved very greatly.

Airfields (Defence Systems)

Mr. Rhodes James: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the capacity of Her Majesty's forces to defend Royal Air Force airfields against air attack; and whether he proposes additions to the ground-to-air missile defence systems as described in the latest statement on the Defence Estimates.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): Our fighter and missile defences present a strong deterrent to


hostile aircraft targetted against RAF airfields. The"Statement on Defence Estimates 1979"sets out a number of improvements that are being made to the RAF's ground-to-air missile defence capability.

Mr. Rhodes James: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there remains considerable concern in certain quarters about the capability of defending our airfields by ground-to-air missiles? Is he further aware that the essential point of our defence expenditure is to maintain the credibility of Western defence and that the moment that credibility is challenged or questioned the preservation of the fragile peace that we have becomes at hazard?

Mr. Wellbeloved: We welcome support from Conservative Members, whenever it takes place, for the substantial improvements that the Government have made in our air defence capability.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that 40 years ago this month the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia and that our air defences then were far worse than ever before? Today, together with our allies, they are better than what they were then. Will he bear in mind that in opposition the Tories are always spendthrifts, but in power, parsimonious?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am well aware of the truth of the latter part of my hon. Friend's comments. Both before the Second World War and since—for instance in 1957—the Conservative Party dismantled and discarded our air defence capability. As I have repeatedly told the House, it is this Administration who have put it back on a proper footing, although a great deal remains to be done if we are to be in a position to meet the increasing Soviet threat.

Nuclear Capability

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to announce his decision as to a replacement for the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent after the present deterrent has ended its useful life.

Mr. George: Rodgers asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement defining the role of the

United Kingdom independent nuclear weapon and indicating whether it is intended to retain this capacity.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The United Kingdom's nuclear capability must be seen in the context of NATO's strategic and theatre nuclear forces, the central role of which is to deter aggression. This independent contribution also strengthens collective deterrence by providing a second centre of decision-making within NATO, thereby increasing the uncertainties faced by an aggressor.
The Government have made it clear to the House on numerous occasions that the Polaris submarines will continue to form an effective contribution to NATO's deterrent strategy into the 1990s. It is, therefore, premature to come to a decision at this stage as to a possible successor. If in due course it should be decided to proceed with a successor to the Polaris force, the time scale would depend upon the option chosen.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Secretary of State accept that the useful life of Britain's nuclear deterrent is unlikely to be more than another 14 years? As it is likely that at least 13 years will be required to develop any successor system, is it not extraordinary that there was no mention of this subject in the defence White Paper? Are the Government deliberately trying to stifle debate on this subject because of the opposition they expect from their hon. Friends?

Mr. Mulley: On the contrary, the Government welcome discussion on this and on many other aspects of defence policy. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's timetable. The first question to decide is"whether ". I just recall the fact that the first Polaris submarine was on station within six years of the signing of the agreement.

Mr. Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing and widespread opinion in this country that an independent nuclear deterrent in the possession of the United Kingdom is not only morally indefensible but absurdly expensive? Will he give an assurance that, in line with the Labour Party manifesto commitment, we intend to abandon this absurdity, which is simply a prestige symbol and is extremely hazardous to this nation?

Mr. Mulley: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that in the Labour Party manifesto there was any reference to our abandoning the existing Polaris force. On the contrary, we said that it would be maintained as an effective force. The question whether there should be a successor is, as I have said, one for the future.

Mr. Cormack: Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that he will wake up to the realities of the situation? Will he pledge the Government to ensuring that we shall have a replacement weapon? Reverting to the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), will he remember that it is not much more than 10 years since the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Mulley: I do not see the immediate connection between the hon. Gentleman's first and last points. Obviously, the question is one for the future and not one for me to settle this afternoon.

Mr. Crawshaw: My right hon. Friend has been reminded of 1938. He will remember that that was a time when some of my colleagues' predecessors were shouting for arms against Germany and denying the country the means whereby they were obtained. Will he bear in mind that, while not going completely mad on the subject of atomic weapons, we must have suitable weapons, so that if we were left on our own we could provide a deterrent against aggressors?

Mr. Mulley: The Government's policy remains in full support of the NATO Alliance, in which its deterrent posture is based on a triad of conventional, theatre and strategic nuclear weapons.

Sir Ian Gilmour: In view of the sensible remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in his original answer about the value and importance of our strategic nuclear deterrent, what possible argument can there be for not saying that there should now be a replacement for Polaris? Why does not the Minister stand up to his anti-Western Friends below the Gangway?

Mr. Frank Allaun: Anti-war Friends.

Mr. Mulley: I think that the right hon. Gentleman looks under his bed every

night for members of the Tribune group. The idea that there is a great argument on this side of the House is erroneous. There are, of course, arguments about priorities in defence, which is right and proper. Most of the arguments of a serious character conducted in this country come from within the Labour movement. The existing force will remain effective into the 1990s. Therefore, any option if it were to be taken now would be premature. I cannot foresee the course of events, though I hope very much that SALT II will be ratified and that it will be followed by further multilateral arms control arrangements. No one can foresee the situation some years from now.

Iran (Arms Contracts)

Mr. Alan Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present state of the United Kingdom's arms contracts with Iran; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mulley: The previous Iranian Government informed our ambassador on 6 February that the supply of Shir tanks to Iran and action on certain other defence contracts should be terminated and discontinued. These contracts are therefore being brought to an end and the Iranians are being informed accordingly. We have started to discuss with the new Administration in Iran what action they want us to take as regards other defence contracts.

Mr. Clark: Will the Secretary of State at least tell the House what back-up plans he has for allowing the British Services to benefit from this unexpected windfall, particularly since he and his right hon. Friends so frequently used the term"pre-financed"in their earlier descriptions of these contracts? This can mean only that the equipment will now come in at a bargain price if we choose to take it ourselves.

Mr. Mulley: On the question of pre-financing, the contracts involved progress payments. There can be no question of our not having to account for the moneys received and the tanks already supplied. It is not a question of a large number of tanks which have been paid for, and there is no question of their being used for the British Army in that context. The Chieftain tank is still an effective weapon.


Unless the Army is to re-equip totally with a new tank—one designed for different circumstances from those in Germany, where we need to deploy our own tank force—it is better to have the MBT 80 which we are planning, rather than to try to bring the Shir tanks in at an earlier stage. We are examining these aspects.

Mr. Terry Walker: Will my right hon. Friend consider the factories which have hitherto relied on Iranian contracts, such as the BAC dynamics group factory at Filton? Can he say whether, if any contracts are available, they will be awarded to those factories to offset any redundancies which result from the cancellation of Iranian orders?

Mr. Mulley: We are in touch with all the firms involved in these contracts. Where possible, as my right hon. Friend said in answer to an earlier question, in consultation with other Departments we are seeking to provide alternative work.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Is it true that the Ministry of Defence placed a number of contracts on behalf of the previous Iranian Government with defence firms in this country, without achieving cover in the form of an order from the Iranian Government of the day?

Mr. Mulley: No, not to my knowledge. In each case there have been proper contractual arrangements.

Oman

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the British defence obligations to Oman.

Mr. Mulley: There are no legal obligations as such, but we second personnel to serve with the Sultan's Armed Forces, and we train Omani personnel in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marten: In view of the current situation in the Gulf, are the Government prepared, so far as they can be, to respond to requests for help from Oman?

Mr. Mulley: We shall look with great sympathty on such requests as we may receive. We have, however, to await requests and deal with them when they arrive.

Mr. Grocott: Is my right hon. Friend assured that the quality of the advice which the Government are receiving on

the stability of the regime in Oman and the degree of its popular support is of a higher order than that which we recently received on the regime in Iran?

Mr. Mulley: These questions are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. However, I have no reason to doubt that we receive proper advice. It is then for Ministers to deal with that advice.

Mr. Blaker: In recent years, has not Oman been the subject of sustained and unprovoked aggression from South Yemen, encouraged and assisted by the Soviet Union? Has the Secretary of State any reason to imagine that such aggression will not be repeated, especially if the co-operation of Britain with Oman were to cease?

Mr. Mulley: We have no plans to change the present arrangements which, I understand, the Government in Oman wish to continue.

Mr. Newens: Are British forces in Oman there to defend democracy and democratic values? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is convinced that such values exist there?

Mr. Mulley: The British personnel in Oman, as I said in my initial answer, are seconded. They are not serving in their capacity as members of the British forces. Their role is exclusively to train Omani personnel so that they can gradually take over these responsibilities themselves.

Dartmoor (Storage of Dangerous Substances)

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the proposed plan by his Department to store lethal, poisonous and noxious substances on Dartmoor.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: We plan to provide a protected compound at Okehampton camp, similar to others which are already in use elsewhere, to facilitate training in a nuclear and chemical environment. Small quantities of toxic materials would be stored in the compound under conditions which would ensure that there was no risk to the Service men or to the public.

Mr. Steen: I am a member of the Dartmoor Preservation Society. Why is the


Minister so intent on extending the military presence into one of the country's unique national parks? How does he square his view with the Government's policy, which is to preserve and protect the national parks at all costs against any incursion?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. We are not extending our activities in to the national park. We are doing nothing that has not been done for many years.

Mr. Jay: Cannot the Government find a safer and more remote area in which to store these materials than one which is frequented by thousands of visitors throughout the summer?

Mr. Brown: I give my right hon. Friend an absolute assurance that there is no danger at all from the storage of these substances. They are also stored in other areas. The fact that this is a national park does not alter the situation. It is a military training area.

Royal Navy (Defence Capability)

Mr. Trotter: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that after the withdrawal of HMS"Ark Royal ", the Royal Navy remains able to deal with the potential threat posed by the very large new Soviet warships such as the"Kiev"and"Minsk"which are armed with aircraft and long-range missiles.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that, with the support of our NATO allies, we can meet the potential threat.

Mr. Trotter: Does the Minister agree that these new Soviet aircraft carriers, which are twice as large as any ship in the Royal Navy, present a formidable threat to our sea lines of communication? Can he tell the House whether the"Kiev"and the"Minsk"operate in areas of strategic importance to our shipping?

Mr. Duffy: The"Kiev"is at present located north of the Shetlands.

Mr. Rost: What is it doing there?

Mr. Duffy: The"Minsk"is off the coast of West Africa. With the introduction into service of these ships the Soviet

Navy will undoubtedly continue to improve its anti-submarine and anti-surface shipping capability. However, the threat that they pose can be countered by a concerted response from land-based aircraft, together with Royal Navy missile-armed warships and SSNs and, in due course, the Sea Harrier. The Royal Navy, however, will not have to deal in isolation with a potential Soviet threat. It will be able to rely on the support of NATO.

Mr. Cronin: Does my hon. Friend agree that HMS "Ark Royal"represented too many eggs in one basket and that the much smaller Soviet ships such as"Kiev"and"Minsk"are amply counter-balanced by the anti-submarine cruisers?

Mr. Duffy: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that HMS"Invincible"will be engaged in sea trials this spring and that we shall embark the Sea Harrier for further trials next year.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: What assessment has the Minister made of why the Russians are building these large aircraft carriers?

Mr. Duffy: In order to obtain a response to a question on a different policy area the hon. and gallant Gentleman must table a different question.

Military Medal

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of living holders of the Military Medal who received that award prior to 2 September 1939 and also the number of those living who received the same honour subsequent to 2 September 1939.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Approximately 116,000 Military Medals were awarded in the First World War and about 17,000 in the Second World War. I am afraid that I have no means of knowing how many recipients of the medal are still alive.

Mr. Farr: Will the Minister correct the disgraceful anomaly by which those who won the medal after the outbreak of the last war received a financial reward whereas those who gained the distinction before the outbreak of the last war received no such recognition? Will he examine this and put it right, as it will cost little?

Mr. Brown: No. The financial benefits associated with the Military Medal were introduced in 1945. The Government of the day decided that the awards could not be back-dated beyond 1939 because it would have been impossible to trace all those who were entitled to payment. That decision has been upheld by successive Governments when the matter has been reconsidered.

Central Treaty Organisation

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the British military contribution to the Central Treaty Organisation in the light of recent developments in the Gulf; and whether he is proposing to review this contribution.

Mr. Mulley: Member countries do not declare forces to CENTO, but have participated in a programme of military exercises and conferences. In view of the decision of Turkey, Iran and Pakistan to withdraw from CENTO the organisation must be considered to be at an end. The exercises which had already been arranged for the remainder of the year will not, therefore, take place.

Mr. Newens: Does not the rapidity of the collapse of CENTO demonstrate the stupidity of basing our military alliance policies on undemocratic regimes which are completely rejected by many of their peoples when they have an opportunity to assert their rights? Is not there a lesson for us to learn, which we should apply to the rest of the Gulf area?

Mr. Mulley: CENTO served a useful purpose in co-ordinating policies in this area for a number of years, but I agree that it would now be profitless to seek to perpetuate such an alliance.

Mr. Amery: Will the Secretary of State recognise what incontinent folly it was for previous Labour Governments to decide to withdraw from Aden and the Gulf? Is he aware that the United States is at last awaking from its post-Vietnamese torpor and is proposing to send some presence to the area? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we, as America's ally are alongside the United States, even if only on a small scale?

Mr. Mulley: Because of our size and resources, I do not accept that it was

wrong for Britain to withdraw from the posture of a world Power. That was the rationale in successive defence reviews which concentrated our effort on the defence of this country and on support of the NATO Alliance. It would be wrong to think that we could become a world Power of the kind that the right hon. Member has in mind.

Hong Kong

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the approximate cost of the new defence headquarters in Hong Kong; and how much of this cost falls on the British taxpayer.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what study he has made of the role and effectiveness of the £7 million forces' headquarters recently opened in Hong Kong; what figures are available for the total defence expenditure on buildings of this type; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Gilbert: As part of the 1975 Hong Kong defence costs agreement, the Ministry of Defence agreed to release the Victoria barracks site to the Hong Kong Government on the understanding that they would provide a new headquarters at no cost to Her Majesty's Government. The cost of the building, which also includes living and recreational facilities, was $HK82 million. There are no plans for similar buildings for the forces elsewhere.

Mr. Hooley: What is the point of maintaining a military garrison in Hong Kong anyway? The place is indefensible against a land attack, and, in the light of the policies of the present Chinese Government, there appears to be no reason to fear such an attack.

Dr. Gilbert: In addition to the roles implied for the garrison by my hon. Friend, it also has to deal with illegal immigrants and internal security. The garrison performs extremely valuable roles in those respects.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when our forces are desperately short of money for men and weaponry it is well-nigh criminal to waste it on prestige blocks of this type, which are presumably full of cocktail cabinets and gold-plated toilets for the officers?

Dr. Gilbert: My hon. Friend cannot have heard my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). The block was provided at no cost to the British Government. The full cost falls upon the Hong Kong Government's budget.

Sir Anthony Royle: Will the Minister explain to his hon. Friend that Hong Kong is a British colony and that therefore we have responsibility for the internal security and defence of that territory?

Dr. Gilbert: I thought that I had already made that clear.

Frigates (Amazon Class)

Mr. Pattie: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Amazon class frigates were fully operational at 1 March 1979.

Mr. Duffy: Four, Sir.

Mr. Pattie: Is the Minister aware that eight Amazon class frigates have been constructed in the last four years? The Minister said that only four of those are operational because of a serious shortage of spares and a 20 per cent. increase in the refit time. Is he aware that captains are taking their ships to sea with some of their equipment not working, rather than risk further delays? What is he going to do to stop that deplorable situation?

Mr. Duffy: The position is not quite as described by the hon. Member. On the date selected for the question four Amazon class frigates were operational. Today, six are operational. Of the four that were not operational on the day selected for the question,"Avenger"was still undertaking operational sea training after refit and"Ambuscade"was in dock because of a defective gearbox. It was repaired on 2 March and became operational on 5 March." Alacrity"was in dock undergoing maintenance. It is due to return to the operational fleet in April 1979." Amazon"was in refit and is due to be completed in May and to return to the operational fleet in July after basic operational sea training.
My experience in the last three years is that wherever Amazon class vessels undertake overseas visits they are the object of admiration.

Mr. Crawshaw: Can my hon. Friend say anything about a possible successor to the Amazon class?

Mr. Duffy: The type-21 class—which is the Amazon class—was introduced as a general purpose frigate prior to the introduction of the type-22 class, which is intended primarily for anti-submarine warfare. I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the type-22 class is coming on stream. Two are undergoing sea trials. In its primary role the type-22 will have a more sophisticated ASW sensor and a wider range of weapon systems than the type-21.

Polaris Missile (Test Firing)

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the test firing in February of a Polaris missile.

Mr. Mulley: On 20 February, HMS"Repulse"successfully completed a test firing of a Polaris missile at the Atlantic missile test range whilst submerged some 30 miles off shore. This was a routine firing to test HMS"Repulse"weapons system after her long refit at Rosyth and was in accordance with the long-established practice that, after such refits, our Polaris submarines carry out part of their work-up in the Cape Canaveral area.

Mr. Cook: Has project"Antelope"now been concluded? Did that project, with its test firing and nuclear tests, play any part in the replacement options to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the danger that if he encourages his staff to go ahead exploring those options he will find that they have taken the replacement decision for him?

Mr. Mulley: I am not sure what was involved in project"Antelope ", which I believe was a code name used a long time ago, but I assure my hon. Friend that this was a routine firing after a refit. It is right that the weapons system should be tested after a refit. None of those test firings involved nuclear devices.

Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's admission, in a parliamentary reply to me at the end of last week, that in the course of the past 18 months about 300 strategic warheads have been deployed by the Soviet Union against Western Europe in the form of over 100 SS-20 mobile intermediate range ballistic missiles, with a destructive


potential equal to 15,000 Hiroshima bombs, does he believe that the capacity of this country to deploy a single Polaris submarine is adequate in the circumstances of this massive Soviet build-up?

Mr. Mulley: I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions that we are members of an Alliance. The whole question of the defence of this country, as of all the members of the NATO Alliance, depends on the collective efforts of the alliance. It is totally wrong and misleading of the hon. Gentleman, on the one hand, constantly to state the armed strength of the Warsaw Pact, and, on the other, the national strength of the United Kingdom, as though any possibility of aggression in the future would involve the United Kingdom alone against the Soviet Union.

Queen's Flight

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the age of the aircraft of the Queen's Flight; and if the Government now plan to replace them with modern jet aircraft.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Andovers of the Queen's Flight entered service in 1964 and the Wessex in 1969. There are no current plans to re-equip the flight with jet aircraft.

Mr. Townsend: Is it right that our Head of State and her family have to fly in 14-year-old turbo-props, when her Ministers fly in modern jet aircraft? Will the Minister get a grip and come forward with sensible plans to re-equip this prestigious Flight?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. Ministers use the Queen's Flight when it is available, and Her Majesty uses jet aircraft of the Royal Air Force, notably the VC 10. Many years of good and useful service remain to be taken from the Andovers of the Queen's Flight.

Mr. Tapsell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when these aircraft arrive overseas they are universally regarded with affectionate amusement and that they do grave damage to the reputation of British technology? Would it not be in the commercial interests of this country for members of the Royal Family to fly in modern jet aircraft?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The cost of the Queen's Flight falls upon the defence Vote. It costs the defence Vote £1·8 million. With the pressures on air defence and many other matters, it is right and proper that the defence Vote is concentrated upon the defence of the country. To the best of my knowledge, the Royal Family are satisfied with the arangements made by the Royal Air Force. In any long-range flights undertaken by Her Majesty, VC 10s are available and provide a satisfactory and technologically perfect service.

NATO

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what matters were discussed at the meeting.

Mr. Mulley: I met Dr. Luns for lunch when he visited the United Kingdom on 21 February. We discussed informally a number of issues of current interest to the alliance.

Mr. Allaun: Was not Dr. Luns a member of the Dutch Nazi Party from 1933 to 1936? Should he not be asked to resign, even though he purports that his brother signed him on without his knowledge? Is that not—

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order after questions, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is unnecessary. We take points of order, if possible, after questions.

Mr. Churchill: Is it in order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The same thing happened last week on the Government side of the House. An hon. Member insisted on putting his point of order.

Mr. Churchill: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, to make unfounded smear allegations against the secretary general of the NATO Alliance, to which we belong?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members take responsibility for their own statements.

Mr. Allaun: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an impertinence—[HON. MEMBERS:"Yes."] I for such a man to come to Britain, as he does continually, and tell us that we must increase our expenditure annually and that we must have a new generation of nuclear deterrents? As for what the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) says, what I have said has been admitted in the press.

Mr. Mulley: I have seen in the press the references to which my hon. Friend refers. I understand that these allegations have been made from time to time and that Dr. Luns has repudiated any active part in these organisations. I do not see the relevance of this question to Dr. Luns' recent visit.

TUC

Ql. Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Prime Minister when he plans next to meet the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I meet representatives of the TUC from time to time at the National Economic Development Council and on other occasions. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Walker: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he discuss the importance of the Government's trade deal with the Chinese? Will he seek to allay the fears of the TUC about the supply of Harrier jets to China which, we understand, is an integral part of the deal. Will he say when the deal is to be finalised?

The Prime Minister: I shall be happy to discuss this matter with representatives of the TUC if they so wish. As I understand it, negotiations are continuing on many matters, including railway equipment, steel mills, and other areas, as a result of the visit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. If agreements on those important orders are concluded—I expect them to be—I expect that negotiations and the prospects for the Harrier will look very fair.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister will doubtless wish to discuss with the

TUC the rising rate of inflation. How does he explain the fact that even before this year's pay increases have been able to work through into prices, the rate of inflation, on the Chancellor's chosen basis, has already risen to 13·3 per cent?

The Prime Minister: I would regard that as a piece of Tory disinformation. The right hon. Lady is bearing me out. As wages work through into the rate of inflation, which they have done since last July and the start of the new wage year, in August, the rate of inflation is likely to increase. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will be happy to know that it will not go back to the levels that existed when she was last in office.
Wage settlements during the last couple of months seem to be settling down at a reasonable level. Certainly they are much less than looked likely after the Ford and the lorry drivers' settlements. As they seem to be settling down, we can expect that although the rate of inflation will go up it will be in the region, I hope, of about 10 per cent., or thereabouts. The right hon. Lady asks whether I shall discuss this matter with the TUC. I assure her that we are already doing so, with the object of reducing inflation over the next three years to under 5 per cent. That is absolutely necessary.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I make two quick points? The figure of 13·3 per cent. is a piece of Treasury information that was given in a written answer yesterday. As for the inflation rate for the next three years, will the right hon. Gentleman stop making pledges on my behalf?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Lady knows—but would not care to quote—the official retail price index published last Friday revealed the figure of 9·6 per cent. I wonder why she does not quote that figure instead of the response to a carefully planted question designed to produce a certain answer. The right hon. Lady may propose, but I suggest that the electorate disposes.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Loyden: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 20 March.

The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Loyden: Will my right hon. Friend give some thought today to the various meetings that he and other Ministers have had on unemployment, especially in the regions? Does he accept that Mersey-side workers—[Interruption.]—contrary to the views expressed by the Opposition Front Bench, are demanding more and not less Government intervention to deal with the problems that face Merseyside? Is he aware that in the private sector 14,000 jobs have been lost and that Government intervention is required to deal with regional unemployment?

The Prime Minister: The situation on Merseyside is rather different from that of the North-West as a whole. The Northwest is doing a remarkable job in diversifying its industrial structure. Merseyside is a challenge to everyone. It does no service to anybody to decry the position on Merseyside. The figures and studies show that productivity on Merseyside is not very different from that in the rest of the country. We should not give countenance to the damaging myths that are spread about the whole of Merseyside although the area does have special problems.
In taking up the challenge, especially in relation to public expenditure, I remind my hon. Friend that, in addition to the jobs that have been lost, about 44,000 jobs have been created or maintained by means of the Industry Act 1972, including valuable jobs produced by the GEC—Fairchild microelectronic industry that is being set up on Merseyside, the Schreiber furniture plant, Shell chemicals, fertilisers and the new Co-operative bank. All these organisations are bringing life to Merseyside, and that must be set against the industries that have gone.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Prime Minister consider the story that is floating that the Government may attempt to deal with the Scotland Act by referring it to a Select Committee? Is he aware that any attempt to anaesthetise the issue in that way will be totally unacceptable to my hon. Friends and myself?

The Prime Minister: I do not bother myself with all the stories that float around on these matters. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman waits until I make my statement.

Mr. Donald Stewart: When?

The Prime Minister: In response to requests from other parties, I propose to make it on Thursday. If I were to correct every misleading story that I read in the press, I should never do anything else.

Mr. Mates: Will the Prime Minister find time today to talk to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the effect that the civil servants' strike is having on some citizens? Is he aware, for example, that two old-age pensioner constituents of mine are unable to draw their premium bonds to meet bills which they entered into before the strike started? Is he aware that another pensioner is unable to cash her national savings to take a holiday for which she has saved for two years? Is not this appropriation of people's money by Government inefficiency the last straw? What will he do about it?

The Prime Minister: I have always regarded the strike as totally unnecessary, and I have said so. Those who go on strike do not receive pay while they are not performing their duties. That is the Government's responsibility. I understand that there has been a meeting today between the Lord Privy Seal and the Civil Service National Whitley Council and that negotiations will be resumed on Monday, when I hope that they may come to a conclusion. I say again that the new rates are not due to come into force until 1 April.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: As regards unemployment and trade generally, is my right hon. Friend aware that the labour content of our imports far exceeds the labour content of our exports? Although we may now be in surplus financially, we have a labour deficit. Therefore, will he institute an inquiry to ascertain how best we may bring about a labour balance in our overseas trade?

The Prime Minister: For the last quarter of 1978 our balance of payments was in substantial balance. I have no doubt that it will build up again in 1979. As


for the labour content, by which I assume my hon. Friend means the amount of labour that goes into each unit volume of production, I am not aware of his figures. The figures are well worth studying. I am glad to say that Britain's share of world trade increased in 1977. We more than held our own. Despite a less rapid increase in the level of world trade, I believe that the same will be found to be true of 1978.

Later—

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that on Question No. 2 my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) attempted to draw the attention of the House to the serious unemployment situation on Merseyside. He did so against a barrage of laughter and giggling from the Opposition Benches. Amidst that laughter a number of Government supporters heard a Member of the Opposition, when my hon. Friend referred to the workers on Merseyside, say that there were no workers on Merseyside. Will you, Mr. Speaker, reassure listeners to the debate, if no one else, that that slur on the working people of Merseyside came from a member of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear the remark.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), when putting a question, was interrupted by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on a point of order. Very reasonably, you have always requested Members of Parliament to put points of order at the end of Question Time. The intervention was made in an attempt to suppress a piece of perfectly fair comment, which, fortunately, is free in the House and should be allowed without interference. Will you draw the attention of extremists such as the hon. Gentleman to the fact that Members of Parliament have a right to put a question, that points or order are normally taken at the end of Question Time, and that this is still a free Parliament, without extremism and suppression from the Right-wing minority in the Tory Party?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only last week a Government supporter declined to accede

to my request to put his point of order at the end of Question Time. I am pleased to say that the House responds overwhelmingly when I ask hon. Members to leave a point of order until after Question Time. That did not happen today and it did not happen last week. I hope that it will happen in future.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not object to the remarks of my hon. Friend, in which he drew attention to the point that I made, but would it be right for hon. Members who want to raise a point of order merely to rise and indicate to you that at the end of Question Time they intend to do so? May I say that I am prepared to repeat what I have said—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Allaun: —outside the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: I rose to intervene before the hon. Gentleman had finished, as I thought he wanted to repeat his remark inside the House and not outside. I apologise.

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden).

Mr. Marshall: Whether the inflation figure be 9·6 per cent. or 13·3 per cent., does the Prime Minister accept that the figure is too high and is rising? Does he also accept that working through the pipeline is the effect of the road hauliers' dispute, during which lost orders and increased costs generally will increase the inflationary spiral? Are not the Government largely responsible as it was they who took off sanctions in that instance?

The Prime Minister: Now I know how history is made.
These are not my figures. I have referred to the official index. The figure of 9·6 per cent. comes from the official index that is used consistently by all parties on all occasions, and it has never been challenged. The hon. Gentleman knows the Government's policy on inflation. I much regret that the country did not follow the Government's advice that


was offered last autumn, when we said that if everybody were willing to accept a 5 per cent. increase in earnings there would be no increase in inflation. Indeed, inflation would be going down now if that advice had been accepted.

Mr. David Steel: The Prime Minister referred to the Civil Service pay dispute. Is he aware that the bulk of the Civil Service in Scotland is proposing to withdraw its labour tomorrow? Is he also aware that he referred to an area of misunderstanding when he mentioned 1 April as being the starting date of the new pay round? Is it clear in the minds of civil servants, or have the Government made a statement to make it clear, that the result of the comparability study will take effect from 1 April and not from some future date?

The Prime Minister: I shall ask my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal to consider that matter. However, there are still 10 days left in which to negotiate a settlement if the civil servants wish to do so. I understand that they are claiming, with some justification, that during the past two or three years their levels of pay have fallen behind the total emoluments received in private industry and that therefore they have a claim for a substantial amount. That must be worked out over the next 10 days. All I can hope is that if that is proved to be the case, and if there is a staged improvement, everybody else will not use it as another excuse to climb on the ratchet, to go up the escalator once more—and all the other similes that I can think of—which will lead to an increased inflation.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Prime Minister find time today to turn his mind from devolution and economic matters and consider what contribution the Government can make to the International Year of the Child? Will he bear in mind that repeatedly on Fridays in the House my Bill to end the caning of handicapped children has been blocked by Tory Members? Does he agree that this is a disgrace? Will he undertake, on behalf of the Government, to introduce legislation to end this abhorrent practice as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I could not give any undertaking to my hon. Friend on this matter. Private Members' time is basically for private Members.
There has been considerable Government activity on the general question of the International Year of the Child, with a great deal of voluntary help. I am glad to say that many activities are being conducted in the country. I am glad to say also that there is a great desire to help children in other countries who are less fortunate than our own.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave your office notice of this matter. I think that you have had notice of a matter that I intended to raise some time ago. It was simply that a few days ago I sought to table a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what the tax incidence was appertaining to the Westminster estate. I was told by your office, no doubt in good faith, that questions on individual tax liability were not permitted. I think that that ruling stems from a time before the House, in its wisdom, decided—I voted against—for the first time to divulge to the EEC authorities and Ministers the tax liability of individual taxpayers. That occurred on a VAT resolution last year. It seems to me in those circumstances that there can no longer be the old objection that there once was to putting questions on such matters. I also raised the concomitant question. I asked the Chancellor whether he would introduce legislation to nationalise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have already ruled privately with him on this question and that it is quite wrong to repeat in the House the question that I disallowed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Ordered,

That the draft Grants to Redundant Churches Fund Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr Foot.]

TRADE UNIONS (SECRET BALLOTS)

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the organisation of secret ballots in connection with trades union activities.
Every attempt by members of the Opposition to introduce proposals that are likely to lead to moderate and sensible reforms in trade union practices calls forth an entirely predictable and uniformly hostile reaction from Government supporters. Indeed, sadly, I have reason to believe that there will be another manifestation of that Pavlovian reaction this afternoon. We may well hear a lecture on management studies from an hon. Gentleman who claims to speak in the name of the workers and who will put up yet another smokescreen about the dangers of confrontation with the unions and the inappropriateness of legislation on trade union activities. That point seemed to have singularly little appeal to the Government and their supporters a few years ago when they rammed through the trade union laws that have done so much harm to the country.
In fact, every day the smokescreen becomes easier to see through, although sadly there was an example only last week when even such a normally percipient observer as the Lobby correspondent of the Daily Telegraph was himself confused by the smokescreen in his appraisal of the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Page), who suggested that trade union members paying their political levy should have the right to decide which party should benefit from that levy.
My proposal is more moderate still. It is no more than to give to trade union members the right, should they so choose, to introduce a greater degree of democracy into trade union procedures. After these agonising months of industrial chaos—chaos that still continues—it is the very least that the people demand of Parliament.
As the effects of Government legislation and policies have worked their way into the system, the public have begun to see clearly the economic and political power

that is exercised at national level by trade union leaders—although, sadly, their power over their own membership is often found to be wanting. They have witnessed the trade union leaders' destruction of the Prime Minister's 5 per cent. pay policy. They have seen the Government fail to extract from the TUC anything more than the tepid platitudes of last month's concordat, even in an election year. They are coming to know more and more about the massive funds that are controlled by the trade union leaders and the powers that they exercise as paymasters of the Labour Party.
The public regard with increasing cynicism the procedures of the Labour Party conferences at which Labour Members, who, very rightly in the case of Rhodesia, demand one man, one vote, seem obliged to accept one man, 1 million votes when they are sitting in Blackpool or Brighton, where those votes are wielded by individual trade union leaders. Those leaders are very important, not only to their trade union members but to all of us. It is therefore vital that they should be representative of their membership.
Believing, as I do, in the innate good sense of the British people, I am convinced that the more representative the trade union leadership is, the better it will be. We must therefore be ready, as the Bill proposes, to offer any sensible help we can to improve the level of democratic practices in the trade unions, whether it is to offer facilities for postal ballots, to encourage employers to co-operate in the organisation of secret voting, or in any other way.
Undoubtedly, some progress has been made. We have the example of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. After the introduction of a postal balloting system there was a dramatic increase in the percentage poll for union elections. That union now benefits from what is widely regarded as a sensible and moderate leadership. [Interruption.] I hope very much that such an accolade from the Conservative Benches will not cause any embarrassment to that leadership. Very much more needs to be done—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Whitney: Some Labour Members are obviously not accustomed to trade union bargaining procedures. Too many


trade union leaders are appointed to positions of considerable power, often for life, by mechanisms that fall very far short of any reasonable democratic practice. I call in aid the darling of the trade unions, the arbitrator in chief, Professor Hugh Clegg, who, in his own study of the General and Municipal Workers Union, entitled"General Union ", pointed out that
 A regular attendance of 100 in a branch of 3,000 would be considered good. It can be seen, then, that elections are determined by a small minority.
The general secretary of the GMWU and acting chairman of the Trades Union Congress, Mr. David Basnett, claims that he was elected to his job—and, as I understand it, elected to it for the rest of his working life—by 208,000 out of 832,000 votes, but it is clear that his actual support was a very great deal less than even the 25 per cent. that he claims. The GMWU is one of those unions that use the block vote system, under which those who turn up to vote at the elections also use the votes of those who do not. What sort of democracy is that?
I mention Mr. Basnett only by way of example. I do not intend to single him out, important though his position is—

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Mr. Ernest G. Perry (Battersea, South): But the hon. Gentleman has singled out Mr. Basnett.

Mr. Whitney: —because I have no doubt that his story—[Interruption.]—could be repeated.

Mr. Perry: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know that interruptions from a sedentary position are quite out of order.

Mr. Perry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you most profusely, but I did say that the hon. Gentleman had singled out the general secretary of my union, David Basnett. That was all I said. He has singled him out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) feels strongly on the question. That is why I addressed my remarks to hon. Members in general rather than to the hon. Member in particular.

Mr. Whitney: I have no intention of making a special case of Mr. Basnett. I wish to use his story as an example of many, as we know that that story, or worse, can be repeated at many points and in many posts throughout the trade union movement.
The case for secret ballots over strike decisions is perhaps less clearcut, but it is nevertheless strong. In order not to delay the House further—[Interruption]—I will cite only two pieces of evidence in support of my argument. They are pieces of evidence which, I can assert with confidence, will be regarded as impeccable and as unchallengeable by the Labour Members who are giving me such a courteous hearing.
I refer, first, to the concordat negotiated last month between the Government and the Trades Union Congress, which made a strong recommendation that union rules should provide for strike ballots to be held. Secondly, in this House the Prime Minister has agreed that a show of hands
 is not a satisfactory way of conducting affairs ".—[Official Report, 7 November 1978; Vol. 957, col. 684.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member now come to a conclusion?

Mr. Whitney: I submit that I have made clear to you, Mr. Speaker, that the challenge that we have to our industrial system can be defeated only by increased democracy. The Bill seeks to give the ordinary union membership the opportunity to assert that democracy. I trust, therefore, that the Bill will have the support of the House.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member seeking to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Litterick: I am, indeed, Mr. Speaker.
This is the eleventh, the sixteenth or about the twenty-eighth attempt by some extremely ignorant Conservative Members to talk about trade unions and the trade union movement of Great Britain in a hostile and critical way. It is not at all untoward that Members of Parliament should talk about great British institutions in a critical way, but it is a pity, and a


waste of the time of the House, when a Member asks all these hon. Members to listen to him and displays the most abysmal ignorance of his subject.
The hon. Gentleman might at least have done a few minutes' homework. He should know by now that prejudice by itself is not enough. The House knows well when an hon. Member is just blowing his trumpet and has no substance to his argument. The hon. Member has demonstrated this very vividly during the last 15 or 16 minutes of his Ten-Minute Bill speech. It was very difficult to discover exactly what he was getting at. His motion says something about
 The organisation of secret ballots in connection with trades union activities.
It is not very informative.
The hon. Member's speech was even less informative. He bumbled along from one subject to another. He thought that it might be a good idea to have a vote on this, on that and on something else, but he did not stop for a moment to examine the implications of what he was saying.
The hon. Gentleman conceded, towards the end of his speech, that the case for having compulsory ballots in a potential strike might not be clearcut. [Interruption.] If he is saying that it is clearcut, he should be reminded that it was tried by the last Conservative Prime Minister, and it did not work. It was catastrophic.
As to the rest of what the hon. Gentleman might have been saying if he had been a bit more lucid, I suggest that he should have done his homework by looking at trade union rules. He would have discovered that most British trade unions are election-ridden. He mentioned the Associated Union of Engineering Workers. In a calendar year that union never has a moment when it is not involved in some sort of election.
Having mentioned the AUEW the hon. Gentleman, no doubt inadvertently, slipped in one of his value judgments, one of the criteria by which he would judge what was good and what was unsatisfactory union procedure, which is presumptuous and arrogant. He said that he approved of the last AUEW elections because a moderate and sensible leadership

had been chosen. The House heard him say that. That is most interesting, coming from the Tory Benches. That moderate sensible leadership has put in a 40 per cent. wage claim. The hon. Gentleman should urgently have a chat with his Chief Whip, if not the Leader of the Opposition, about what is moderate and sensible.
The hon. Gentleman seeks to make judgments about the internal affairs of unions on the basis of his ignorance. He forgets that there are other great institutions that do not have elections. He does not mention them, and I shall not, either. He knows what I am talking about. He was not being even-handed; he was simply setting out on yet another attack on unions.
The ballots that he talks of exist. Almost every union in the country—and its electoral procedures—was investigated for the Donovan report. The report stated that
 Elections in the trade union movement are generally conducted with an almost excessive punctiliousness and by any sensible criterion the extent of malpractice is negligible.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends would accept the Donovan report as a reasonably authoritative judgment, but the country did. If the hon. Gentleman does not, that is his misfortune.
The hon. Member should also bear in mind another comment from the Donovan Commission, on ballots for strikes, namely, that
 It is difficult to resist the conclusion that most of the comments made about this position reflect the belief that the only sensible way to vote in the context of an industrial dispute is to vote against the strike action.
Tory Members frequently and impetuously demonstrate that they do not approve of strikes, but their plea for secret ballots will not alter the strike situation. Their frequent assertion of hostility to free strike action by free workers is shared with the central committee of the Russian Communist Party. For that reason alone, we will vote the hon. Member's Bill down.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 189.

Division No. 100]
AYES
[3.55 p.m.


Adley. Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard (Workington)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Hannam, John
Pardoe, John


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Parkinson, Cecil


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hastings, Stephen
Pattie, Geoffrey


Baker, Kenneth
Hayhoe, Barney
Penhaligon, David


Banks, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Bell, Ronald
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Benyon, W.
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James


Berry, Hon Anthony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biffen, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Raison, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rathbone, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Reid, George


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Jopling, Michael
Rhodes James, R.


Brittan, Leon
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brooke, Hon Peter
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Kilfedder, James
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buck, Antony
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Bulmer, Esmond
Lamont, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Lawson, Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Churchill, W. S.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin



Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shersby, Michael


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silvester, Fred


Clegg, Walter
Lloyd, Ian
Sims, Roger


Cope, John
Luce, Richard
Sinclair, Sir George


Cormack, Patrick
MacCormick, lain
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Crawford, Douglas
MacGregor, John
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Crouch, David
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sproat, lain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Drayson, Burnaby
Marten, Neil
Stanley, John


Dunlop, John
Mates, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Durant, Tony
Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Dykes, Hugh
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Elliott, Sir William
Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mills, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Moate, Roger
Thompson, George


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Monro, Hector
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wakeham, John


Fry, Peter
Morgan, Geraint
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wall, Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Welsh, Andrew


Goodhart, Philip
Mudd, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodlad, Alastair
Nelson, Anthony
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Neubert, Michael
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Newton, Tony
Younger, Hon George


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Nott, John



Gray, Hamish
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Mr. Raymond Whitney and


Grist, Ian
Page, John (Harrow West)
Mr. Toby Jessel.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Allaun, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Ashley, Jack
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Canavan, Dennis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Carmichael, Neil


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cartwright, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Bates, Alf
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Clemitson, Ivor


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)




Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cowans, Harry
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Selby, Harry


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sever, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lambie, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzll
Lamond, James
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lee, John
Silverman, Julius


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Skinner, Dennis


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Dempsey, James
Litterick, Tom
Snape, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, J. D.
Luard, Evan
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stott, Roger


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Madden, Max
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tilley, John


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Meacher, Michael
Tomlinson, John


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Ward, Michael


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watkins, David


George, Bruce
Newens, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Gould, Bryan
Noble, Mike
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Graham, Ted
Oakes, Gordon
White, James (Pollok)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ovenden, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hardy, Peter
Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parker, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Hayman, Mrs Helena
Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Heifer, Eric S.
Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hooley, Frank
Perry, Ernest



Horam, John
Prescott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Eddie Loyden and


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Radice, Giles
Dr. M. S. Miller.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Raymond Whitney, Mr. Nicholas Ridley and Mr. Toby Jessel.


TRADES UNIONS (SECRET BALLOTS)


Mr. Raymond Whitney accordingly presented a Bill to facilitate the organisation of secret ballots in connection with trades union activities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 April and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The need for this Bill has come about because most of the executive and clerical staff in the Court of Session, the High Court of Justiciary and the sheriff courts of Scotland have withdrawn their labour. They have done so not because of a dispute in the courts but as part of selective action called throughout the Civil Service by two Civil Service trade unions. As I said during the debate last Tuesday, strikes that start six weeks before the settlement date and where there is a process of negotiations going on cannot be justified.
I am particularly concerned that the action has centred so much on the courts, which are used and are intended to be used by all members of society as the forum where justice is sought. Its denial to others by those who claim to be seeking justice for themselves is unacceptable and is to be deplored. I had hoped that the unions and their members would call off their action, and, as I explained to the House last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I had met senior representatives of the unions concerned that day to try to persuade them to call off their strike action. This they were not prepared to do. The strike therefore continues.
As the debate in the House last week showed, responsible opinion is agreed that the situation is intolerable and that legislation is required to ameliorate the position as much as possible.
The courts have not stopped entirely, however, and the judiciary, in some cases with the help of staff not on strike, have been doing what they can. I am very grateful to those judges and staff concerned for what they have done to carry on emergency business. Some courts are able to do more than others because more staff are available and some 12 of the smaller

sheriff courts are working more or less normally. Even with the will of the judiciary to take on what is possible, nothing like the general run of work can be carried on where the majority of staff are absent.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I have examined the problems that have arisen. We have been helped by the many points raised by the Lord President of the Court of Session, honourable Members and others. Our aim has been to meet as simply and as expeditiously as possible certain needs that have been identified. In deciding what legislation is needed we have tried to keep the balance between, on the one hand, the needs of the community in relation to law and order and, on the other, the rights of the individual. I believe that we have done this while at the same time endeavouring—and succeeding—to keep the Bill as short and simple as possible.
Like most emergency legislation the Bill is of a temporary nature, and I emphasise again that it will not restore the courts to normality. Only a return to work by the staff will do that. Nor will the Bill deal with each and every problem that the strike has caused. Let there be no mistake—a strike of this kind leaves casualties, and no one regrets this more than I.
The aim of the Bill is, first, to extend certain legal time limits, and in so doing reassure those who have, for example, claims for damages for personal injuries which cannot be raised because of the strike; secondly, to deal with the question of the 110-days rule; thirdly, to enable crimes to continue to be prosecuted; fourthly, to allow the courts to extend the range of business they can undertake, where this is possible; and fifthly, to cope with a particular problem affecting the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland.
Some of these matters can be examined in greater detail in Committee. As we are attempting to carry out the operation in one day it will help the House if I explain briefly, but in some detail, the main provisions of the Bill, clause by clause.
Clause 1 provides that the Bill will cease to be in force one month after the date prescribed in an order made by me. The period from 23 February, when


the strike started, until the date in the order, will be known as the emergency period. The provisions of the Bill will have effect during that period. The date that I shall prescribe is likely to be some time after the end of the strike—I emphasise that—to enable the courts to resume normal working order. At the moment, I am not able to say how long that will be. It will depend on how long the strike continues. There will be a short time after the end of the strike before I prescribe the date. I shall, of course, consult the Lord President of the Court of Session and the sheriffs principal before deciding on the date.
Much concern has been expressed that rights may be lost in relation to legal proceedings, because they cannot be exercised during the present industrial action. Clause 2 will extend legal time limits and ensure that no person will, by reason of the industrial action, lose any right to do anything in relation to legal proceedings. The most important right of this sort on the civil side that will be preserved is—as I have already mentioned—the right to raise an action for damages for personal injuries within the three-year period. The clause will enable such an action to be raised within one month of the end of the emergency, where the three-year period expired during the period of the emergency. That time limit should take care of that matter.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The Secretary of State indicated that there may be a period of time after the courts have begun functioning again but before the end of the expiry period. Will he indicate whether persons who otherwise would have been time-barred will be able to initiate action during that grey period? He has just stated that their only right will be to initiate action one month after the end of the expiry period.

Mr. Millan: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that there is not a technical deficiency in the drafting—I shall look at it during the course of the day. There is not intended to be a period during which the emergency legislation does not bite, if that is what is worrying the hon. Gentleman. It is intended that the right will be there until the end of the emergency period and for a short time afterwards. It would be anomalous if there were a grey period

in between that was not caught. We shall deal with the matter in Committee, but I believe that it has been covered.
The extension of time limits will also apply to criminal proceedings and it will ensure that where the time within which criminal proceedings must be taken expires during the emergency period the proceedings may be raised within one month from the end of the emergency period. Certain other procedural periods of time laid down in rules of court will be extended, as will the right of appeal against the decision of a licensing board. Other rights will also be preserved and these will be specified in Committee.
Turning to clause 3, I have already said that we have tried to keep the balance between the public interest and the rights of the individual. I assured the House last Tuesday that no one charged with a serious criminal offence is to be allowed to escape prosecution because of the emergency. Therefore, clause 3 suspends the running of the 110-day period. In computing the period of 110 days, no account shall be taken of any period during which an accused person is in prison which occurs during the emergency period. I told the House last Tuesday that any person who is judged to be a danger to the public is being detained. We shall continue to detain such persons. In other cases—subject to the normal decision of the court which has the ultimate decision in these matters—persons have been released when they are not considered to be a danger to the public. All persons, of whatever category, will be brought to trial.
I am conscious of the civil liberties issues involved here. One does not wish to keep people in gaol any longer than is necessary. I assure the House that the extension of the 110-day rule will be watched carefully by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and myself.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I apologise for intervening in a predominantly Scottish debate. Will the Secretary of State be good enough to give an assurance that he will look carefully—I ask no more than that—at a specific bail application where there are genuine compassionate circumstances, with a view to alleviating real hardship?

Mr. Millan: We have already provided that bail applications are being heard. I


cannot consider the merits of a particular case, but I think it is important that cases should be heard. If the hon. Gentleman will give my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate details of the case that he has in mind, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be happy to look into the matter.
Clause 4 makes provision to make clear that criminal proceedings may continue during the emergency by citing the accused and witnesses. Criminal cases will not fall because they are not called in court on the diet fixed for them during the emergency period.
Clause 5 enables a court, in the absence of normal staff, to extend the range of business that it can do, where that is possible. A judge—that includes a sheriff—may do any work which could be done by a clerk of court, sheriff clerk or other officer of court. In any particular case, a judge may also authorise any person to do anything in relation to the legal proceedings which could be done by the clerk of the court, the sheriff clerk or another officer of court. The provision has given rise to much comment and, unfortunately, some misunderstanding. Therefore, I wish to deal with it more fully.
In the first place, it seems sensible to have a power that would allow suitable other persons—where these were available—to assist judges in carrying out their duties. At the moment, such a degree of flexibility is necessary to ensure the most effective use of staff available. In the event of the strike continuing for a substantial period, then—much though I would regret the necessity to do so—I do not rule out the possibiilty that offers of outside help, which have already been made, would have to be accepted. That will be necessary if the public interest requires that the range of business being carried out by the courts must be extended.
I should like to make clear that I should regard it as my duty, as the Minister with a general responsibility for the operation of the courts, to say when such a step might be taken. I do not expect the judges, individually or collectively, to take a decision of this nature. After all, it is a question of policy and the judges are not anxious to make that sort of decision.

Once the decision had been taken by me, it would be for each court to decide whether, in its own particular circumstances, such action was necessary and possible. Therefore, I hope that this statement makes the position clear and removes any suggestion that the judges have been given a"strike breakers' charter ". It is a matter of policy, and it is for me.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. What he has said will go some way to relieve the anxieties that some of us have felt. I am sure that he is aware that we shall want to return to the matter on the clause stand part debate. We are discussing the most controversial part of the Bill, which has occasioned the most anxiety on the part of the staff who are involved. Has the Secretary of State received word that the meeting of sheriffs in Glasgow yesterday came to the unanimous conclusion that they would not wish to have the power to appoint any person in place of the clerks of the court, on the ground that it would jeopardise the permanent relationship with their own staff?

Mr. Millan: I have already made clear that these are matters for me and not for judges or sheriffs. They do not wish to take those decisions. The policy decision would be for me, and I should take responsibility for it.
Similarly, there is no question of the judges or sheriffs being expected to recruit temporary staff. I wish to dispel any notion of that kind. If, in the event of a lengthy dispute, a court were to decide that its range of business could be extended—provided certain staff were available—my Department, the Scottish Courts Administration, would, as before, accept responsibility for the manning and remuneration of the necessary staff. The responsibility is mine, and if the occasion were to arise I should be willing to shoulder that responsibility.

Mr. Rifkind: The Secretary of State is aware that the Bill allows the judges, on their own decision, to ask other persons to assist them in the running of the court. If it is the Government's view—and decision—that the right should be exercised only with the concurrence and consent of the Secretary of State, that provision should be in the Bill.

Mr. Millan: A specific amendment has been tabled on that matter. We shall discuss that when we come to it. There is a good reason for drafting the Bill in this way. If the policy decision were made, it would not then be a matter for the Secretary of State to give individual authorisation to individual persons in individual courts; it would be a matter for the judges. I wish to make clear that the policy decision would be made by me and not by the judges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said, the judges do not want to be put in the position of making such a decision.
I should like to repeat what I said earlier about the clause, because it is important. The provisions cannot provide, any more than can the Bill itself, for the courts to return to full business. That can happen only when the staff go back to work.
The purpose of subsection (2) is to enable the court to accept as valid a copy of an original document that has been lodged in court and provides that any such copy should be taken to be a true copy unless the contrary is proved. That provision applies to any document lodged in court, whether it is part of the process of the court or a document lodged as a production in order to be proved in evidence. The documents may not be readily accessible because they have been locked up by those on strike, but copies are normally held by the parties and the provisions in subsection (2) allow a court to accept such a copy in lieu of the original document.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Millan: Yes, but I hope that hon. Members will remember that we are to have a Committee stage later.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It would be helpful to my hon. Friends if we knew what was in the Secretary of State's mind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said, the right hon. Gentleman is providing for a policy decision, and I do not see how that can be done unless legislative provision is made for it. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to accept amendment

No. 2, or something like it? If not, how does he intend to proceed?

Mr. Millan: I have already given a brief explanation and I shall be glad to expand on it when we reach the amendment. It is not necessary to write into the Bill a policy decision made by the Secretary of State.
I shall explain clause 6 in a little detail because it deals with a separate, rather technical, issue but it is a matter of considerable importance to many people. The purpose of the clause is to permit the registration of deeds by the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland where that is being effectively prevented because deeds are not able to be stamped due to the industrial action being taken in the stamp office in Edinburgh.
Under section 17 of the Stamp Act 1891, any person who has the duty of recording any deed is liable to a fine of £10 if he records any deed that has not been duly stamped. That provision has the effect of preventing the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland recording any deed that is not duly stamped. That has meant, among other things, that purchasers of heritable property valued at £15,000 or more have been unable to record a title to their property and so to acquire a real right to it. That, in turn, has meant that financial institutions have been unwilling to lend in security of such property if the borrower does not have a recorded title.
It is estimated that in normal circumstances about 900 property writs a week require to be stamped before being recorded. It is serious that the normal arrangements are not operating, and there are possibilities of considerable personal hardship being involved.
The first part of clause 6 therefore provides that section 17 of the 1891 Act shall not have effect in relation to the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland while the Bill is in force. That provision will enable the Keeper to record deeds that are not duly stamped in the registers for which he is responsible.
However, in itself, the provision might not be sufficient to attract the usual consequences of recording or registering such deeds and, in particular, might not confer a real right upon an unstamped deed in the Register of Sasines. That is because the Stamp Act 1891 provides that, unless


a deed is duly stamped, if should not be given in evidence in civil proceedings or
 be available for any purpose whatever ".
Accordingly, the second half of clause 6 provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of section 14 of the 1891 Act, when such a deed is recorded or registered it will be available for any purposes, provided that it is duly stamped within a certain time, namely, within three months from the date of its recording or registering or such longer time as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may allow. The provision has, of course, been agreed by the commissioners and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Treasury.
I hope that my explanation will have been helpful to the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I will be glad to try to answer questions in Committee, but I have given fairly detailed information about the provisions and I hope that that has been helpful, not only for the Second Reading debate but for our consideration of the later stages of the Bill.
I regret that it is necessary to introduce the legislation. It has a limited purpose and will not restore the courts to their full vigour.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is a sad commentary on our affairs that the Government, who came to power when the miners were on strike and we were playing our role of peacemaker, are now, at the tether end of the Parliament, bringing in a blacklegging Bill.
The Government have it in their power to settle the matter readily by meeting the trade unions concerned with a view to coming to arrangements over the Pay Research Unit. Instead of doing that, they have introduced a Bill which will allow blacklegs to be brought in—at a heavy price, one would assume—to take the place of those who are on strike.
I want the Secretary of State to tell me specifically what sort of wages the lawyers who will be involved will be paid for doing the jobs that are usually done by the workers, some of whom are low paid, in the courts.

Mr. Millan: It is a sad commentary that the Bill should be necessary, but it

is necessary. There was a meeting earlier today with the unions concerned, and negotiations are continuing, which means that the strike is quite unnecessary.

Mr. Skinner: How much will the lawyers be paid?

Mr. Millan: I was saying that the Bill has a limited purpose and will not restore the courts to their full vigour. However, it will help to deal with certain problems and I hope that it will enable the range of business at present undertaken to be extended. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: The Opposition welcome the Bill with intense regret and deep foreboding. I hope that the House will allow me to deal with some of the general principles raised with such clarity by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner.) in his intervention during the Secretary of State's speech, and which hon. Members on both sides of the House, whatever their loyalties to political parties, organisations or groupings, had better get clear if they wish to remain members of a democratic society.
We welcome the Bill and the moderate terms in which the Secretary of State introduced it. We commend the right hon. Gentleman's modesty, though not his tardiness. It was evident on day one of the strike—and let us call it a strike and not by any presumptive and euphonious term such as"industrial action "—that criminal and civil rights of private citizens and citizens in the generality, forming part of our State and community, would be lost and that therefore a Bill to protect those lights was essential.
It is our regret that, out of fear of strike-breaking or some other anxiety, the Government did not do their duty and protect those rights ab initio. They have a duty as the Government to protect the rights of the citizen, and it is not good that they should be protected in reverse. Furthermore, when such rights are in peril it is the duty of the Government to protect them before they prescribe, and I have a suspicion that but for last week's debate, which came out of the Opposition Supply day, this Bill would never have been brought in even yet. The rights of those who lose them, or risk losing them—and let us be absolutely clear that


those who might be detained in prison without trial might even be pickets—are important rights and are no better and no worse whoever may be the person that loses them.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree with me that if new clause 4 were passed it would be impossible for pickets ever to be imprisoned because it would be entirely illegal for people ever to picket and they would therefore not be able to do so. May I press the hon. and learned Gentleman to say whether he endorses the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) that strikes should be entirely illegal in areas of the public sector of this kind?

Mr. Fairbairn: Yes, and I shall have something to say about that which I hope will not fall on deaf ears, nor will even be lost in principle on the hon. Member for Bolsover, whose loyalty—[Interruption.] I will say it in time, if I may. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to leave the Chamber, he can do so. I have no intention of ordering or altering the order of my remarks to suit him just because he belongs to a trade union. I hope that the order and the morals of the remarks I have to make will not be lost on the hon. Member for Bolsover, whose loyalty to certain groupings is liable to blind him to understanding his duty to others.
I think it is important when considering this matter that we appreciate that we are in fact suspending the rights of certain citizens. If I may answer the interjection of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), as he will see during the course of my remarks, I take the view that we owe a moral duty to our neighbour. There are at any rate some people in the community whose jobs are so important and whose duty is so great that they have a fiduciary duty to carry out their obligations to their neighbour, whomsoever he may be, regardless of whether they belong to one or other organisation. I hope that no hon. Member, whether he be Christian or agnostic, would depart from that precept, which seems to me to be necessary and inevitable in a society of any kind. I start from that point.

Mr. Dewar: I am curious therefore about why there is not a new clause on

the Amendment Paper to embody this remarkable principle.

Mr. Fairbairn: That is a silly and childish intervention. We are discussing serious matters of principle for all British people, whether they be Communists, Socialists, miners, trade unionists, lawyers, Ministers of the Crown or even unemployed solicitors representing Glasgow, Garscadden.
But let us be in no doubt as to what this Bill does. It is essentially the first step towards dictatorship. It is the first step in suspension of the rights of the citizen, made necessary by the refusal of some citizens to carry out a moral obligation to their neighbour. Let us not forget that this is the first winter of consensus. It is not the great winter of confrontation; it is not the winter of dissent. This is the winter of the consensus introduced in July by the Prime Minister. It is our first winter of Socialist consensus, and we have to have an emergency Bill—and I understand why the hon. Member for Bolsover objects to it, because he would object to anything which stood in the path of a herd in search of water if the nerd had a trade union card stamped on their bottoms.

Mr. Skinner: What I was attempting to explain, as I usually try to do, perhaps awkwardly at times, is that in this case, as in many others, there is a group of workers who feel that they ought to be getting a little bit more money than some other people think they should. In this case, it is the people in the courts and, on the other side, the people in the Government, backed seemingly by the Opposition in view of their welcome for this Bill. I want justice for all and I know that in some circumstances the courts can provide it, even in Scotland, I suppose. So I am not in favour of this anarchical situation which the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to describe. All I am saying is that we have no need for this Bill, no need to take these first steps towards dictatorship, provided the Government will agree with the unions that they will accept the Pay Research Unit's conclusions. Then we can all go home and forget about this. That is my view. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Fairbairn: The simplicity of the views of the hon. Member for Bolsover has always attracted me. It is similar to the simplicity of the highwayman's view


—" There is no necessity for anybody to get hurt. I happen to have the gun and you happen to have the money." The hon. Member's view is"I know all of you have got some money. I know that the Secretary of State has some money in his boots. I know that the Lord Advocate has certain hidden assets. I know that the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) has funds. I am just a simple highwayman who wants more money, and if you hand over your money, and if the Pay Research Unit will decide whether the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate should contribute most, there is no need for this row."
That is the moral and the law of the hon. Member for Bolsover. Anybody can say that one never needs to fight anybody if the weaker party always gives in to the robber. That is not difficult. I could solve the world's problems very easily. There would not have been a war in this century if France had agreed that Germany should invade it; and there would not have been a war if Poland had been willing to join the Greater Reich. Indeed, there would not have been a murder in a concentration camp if the Jews had had the decency to commit suicide.

Mr. John Ovenden: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that last week my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), on a question about the Opposition's attitude to pay research, asked whether the Opposition supported the full implementation of the Pay Research Unit's report of 1 April of this year. The hon. and learned Member said that he was sorry that he could not help him on that point. Presumably the hon. and learned Member now can assist us. He is telling us that the Opposition do not accept the implementation of the Pay Research Unit's report. That is the gist of his remarks. Will he confirm it so that he can put us out of our agony?

Mr. Fairbairn: That is not the gist of my remarks. I do not want to try the patience of the hon. Gentleman, but I shall come later to the matter of the Pay Research Unit.
Let us be clear that we are removing certain rights and are detaining people in

prison, albeit prospectively dangerous people, without limit of time. As that is a civil right, Labour Members, if it involved a flying picket, would be making a great fuss. But because on this occasion the stamp of trade unionism is on the other foot, the defenders of civil rights seem silent.

Mr. Skinner: The trade unions are not bringing in the Bill.

Mr. Fairbairn: Of course the trade unions are not bringing in the Bill. The highwayman would not bring in a Bill to say that it was wrong for anybody to resist him.
Until recently we regarded ourselves as a Christian society. Whether or not all of us are Christians or practising Christians, we supposed that in our society we had a duty—one hopes a loving duty—to our neighbour, as is echoed in the fraternal claim of the brotherhood of man made by the Labour Party. We are enjoined to love our neighbour as ourself and to do to him what we would wish him to do to us. Indeed, it is fundamental to society that each man forgoes certain rights and indulges in self-restraint and self-discipline in order to have the greater benefits provided by society.
Let us be clear that this Bill in part protects those rights, but in part suspends them. That is what we are doing, and this is but the beginning of a process that will become necessary every year if the concepts of the hon. Member for Bolsover were ever to take a dominant place. Self-restraint is operated as a willing price for the benefits of society.
There are two alternatives. The first is to have an authoritarian State in which no citizen can resist the strength and power of the State and in which each must do as he is told at the whim of the State, subject to the punishment of the State—organised normally if it is successful by an anonymous system of"clyping ", as we say in Scotland, or secret police in Bolsover.

Mr. Skinner: We do not have them there.

Mr. Fairbairn: I dare say that the secret police might be recruited one day in Bolsover, and I can think of candidates if they have to be so recruited.

Mr. Skinner: Not while I am there.

Mr. Fairbairn: The second form of society is a society which precedes civilised society and in which those who have rights have them because they have the force to obtain and keep them. Because of their power, they are able, either by association with others or because they have certain powers or weapons, to have rights and benefits. That is an anarchic and primitive society. In such a society groups rule by force according to their will and allow their will always to overcome that of weaker people.
There is a fact of life from which nobody, no matter to what association he may be loyal, can escape. Crowds have a corporate will and power that transcend the conglomerate power of those who compose it. They also usually suspend moral will and normally act in a manner, if acting by force, to which often no member of that crowd would have consented had he been asked individually. A crowd that acts by force is a mob. If one has a society in which crowds act by force, they will suspend their moral conscience in advance of their actions. Where a crowd is using a strike as that force, it has probably obtained the moral absolution of the Labour Party in advance because it is done in the name of a trade union.
I believe that no act in which one tortures, wounds or destroys the rights of another member of society or one's neighbour or friend can be justified or sanctified because it is carried out in the name of a trade union. It is no more sanctified or justified than if it were carried out in the name of the Faculty of Advocates, the Secretary of State for Scotland, or anybody else.
The Labour Party will have to come to terms with the fact that, because the words"trade union"are mentioned, group force against other members of society—most of whom probably are members of a trade union—does not become justified. In retrospect, we cannot say that what is done by force by a blue collar worker is good but that what is done by a white collar worker in the same terms is bad.
Each of us is one another's neighbour and owes a duty to the other. We cannot escape our duty by joining a crowd because that crowd happens to be a trade

union recognised in terms of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act and is a registered union affiliated to the TUC.
The extent of the logic of my argument, which I put with all gravity, is that even when we consider the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose actions have been admirable in this matter, the extent of crowd rule can be illustrated by saying that when the right hon. Gentleman tries to protect the constitutional rights of the citizen, the highwayman then increases his threats. The highwayman and his friends take the view that if the Secretary of State will not do their will and attempts to resist their plunderings they will bring down the whole house on his head. They will make matters worse for the rest of the community. If the Secretary of State does not give in to them, they will make pensioners unable to obtain their savings and pensions and will wreck society. That is the simple issue that is before us. Those who choose to refuse to do their duty by their neighbour deserve that others should do it on their behalf.
The Secretary of State—and I regret it—said that this was not a strike-breaking charter. I do not think it is a strikebreaking charter, but if we remove the emotive words"strike-breaking charter"I regret that it is not a piece of legislation which will compel people who have a legal and moral duty to their neighbour to fulfil it.
How have we come, in our tolerant, democratic and decent society, to a state where anybody, however well paid, exalted, sensible, or responsible, is willing to indulge in—I use the word again—childish behaviour by saying"If you do not give in, I shall make life absolutely intolerable for victims in society until I persuade you, by torturing them, to surrender "?
That judgment arises partly out of the eternal marriage of the Labour Party to the TUC—or at any rate from the fact that the Labour Party, or one of the Government parties in this country, happens to be the child of the trade unions. That fascination and filial piety is demonstrated no better than by the devoted and implacable devotion of the hon. Member for Bolsover. I admire the principle of devotion, but I do not admire it when it ignores the effect it has on other people.


I believe that the main duty rests on two people—the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). The former dressed up weakness as strength and the latter is weakness in reality. The former dressed up resistance to this kind of behaviour as confrontation, and the latter dressed up surrender to it as consensus. There is the charge, and if we need a third blind monkey who turns his eyes, ears and senses to wrong, it is no doubt the Lord President of the Council.
Those right hon. Members have brought about a situation where men of all ranks—from Mr. Speaker, if I may say so without disrespect, the Secretary of State, right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench, and those in the Public Gallery, right down to the most humble person in society—say"If I am sanctified by belonging to a trade union, I have no moral duty to my neighbours and I am entitled to wound them, hurt them and increase that wounding and hurting until I get my way." If I may say so to the hon Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden), the fact that a person may have a justifiable case on a matter of pay can never justify abdication of his moral duty in society.

In conclusion—

Mr. Ovenden: The hon. and learned Member complimented me on my patience in listening to him. I did not need complimenting, because it was no hardship. I have a sense of humour and I always enjoy his speeches. However, he promised my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that he would reply to the point regarding the right of public sector workers to go on strike and to my point about whether the Conservative Party accepted the implementation of pay research in its entirety this year. The hon. and learned Gentleman has now said"In conclusion ", so I take it that he does not intend to reply to either point. Does he think that he has replied?

Mr. Fairbairn: If the hon. Member for Gravesend is to be present, I suggest that he also indulges in the art of good listening. I said to the hon. Member for Garscadden—neither hon. Member is a good listener, one no doubt because he is

a solicitor and the other because he is a trade unionist—that I believe that a fiduciary duty is placed upon a large number of people in many occupations in this country, in a modern State, and they should not have the right to withdraw their labour. If they have that right, I believe that it should be coupled with the loss of equivalent rights such as the rights they have under the Employment Protection Act, the Redundancy Payments Act, the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Contracts of Employment Act. I could add more.
I believe that it is impossible for a society to function if the right to withdraw labour not only exists but is regularly exercised by all groups in society, from top to bottom. The Secretary of State for Scotland was quite right to have said to the Civil Service union concerned"We will listen to your reports, and we will make recommendations and those recommendations will be the subject of an award on 1 April." I am sorry that the weakness of the Government has compelled them to say"Yes, we will give all that these people recommend, but we will phase it ", which means that they will put off the trouble until next year, the year after or the year after that.
We must be quite clear that in pay negotiations we cannot have absolute rules so that we can say"You made an agreement." I accept that there has been difficulty with the pay pause, but we cannot have absolute rules whereby people say"Before, the system was such, and whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I demand that you return to that system. Regardless of the needs of the nation, or whether it means that the nurses, doctors, civil servants and Members of Parliament get nothing, I want my bit ". That is the other face of the coin of selfishness which, I hope, I have described with some modesty this afternoon—[Interruption.] I did not hear the hon. Member for Bolsover, but I think that he should make that interruption standing up.

Mr. Skinner: I said that there is plenty of money in this country. If I can elaborate, perhaps we can begin by using the £800 million dished out to the Common Market last year and the £1,100 million that will be dished out this year.

Mr. Fairbairn: I have no doubt that the fantasy exists in some minds—particularly in the minds of Labour Members—that money, like fresh air, is free and that all we need to do is breathe it in. As with Santa Claus, we just write a letter and he will bring it in his sack. It is all there, if only the rotten old red-dressed Scrooge would hand it over, if only"Santa Government"would hand it over. But let us be clear that before"Santa Government"can hand it over they must go to the household of the hon. Member for Bolsover and take that money away from him, or borrow it from an international banker and charge it to the household of the hon. Member for Bolsover. So let us get away from such fantasies.
If there is plenty of money in this country, why do not the Government double everybody's pay? Would the hon. Member for Bolsover do that? Let us give everybody £100 million a year. These are unrealistic fantasies, and if the hon. Member for Bolsover believes in them I had not appreciated that he was quite so stupid. At least he has a loyalty to principle which would be a great credit to any child, but when it comes to adult thinking I sometimes have my doubts.
In our society I believe that the grave-digger has a moral duty, in all circumstances, to bury the mother of the lorry driver when she dies. I believe that the lorry driver has a moral duty to deliver food to the doctor and his family. I believe that the doctor has a moral duty to operate on the civil servant when he is ill. I believe that the civil servant has a moral duty to ensure that payment is made to the mother of the nurse when she needs her national savings. I believe that the nurse has a moral duty—which, God bless her, she is fulfilling and understands—to tend the sick of all those categories when they require attention.
If we suspend that moral duty, we have no answer. Therefore, in welcoming the Bill with mighty regret, I think that all hon. Members in humility should understand where such conduct leads them. It is no good standing on ceremony and saying"Yes, but it was my right ". It is not our right. It is our duty to our neighbour in society to do our duty, and no claim or award of pay can ever reduce that duty.
I think that the Secretary of State said last week—and I would accuse him not of unfairness but of misunderstanding—that I had not appealed to these people to return. Lest there be any doubts, let me do that now. I know many of these people and have worked with them. I could not have believed that they would be willing to throw dust in the eyes of justice just because they have some dispute with the Government. I appeal to them personally—not as a crowd, a union or as the shock troops of the SCPS—to go back to each of their consciences and to do their duty by justice. If we wish to have a democratic society, those who are necessary for its function must do their duty. If we do not, there is one horrid alternative, and that is to answer force by force. That is what the Bill in principle is about. It is suspending the rule of law and answering force by force.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I find the appeal to the individual members of the sheriff clerks' departments who are on strike a little incongruous from the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). After all, he spent the last 35 minutes informing us that they are no better than highwaymen, that they are torturing the innocent in order to batter the Government into unworthy surrender. To use that kind of language, to cast them in that role and then to think that in some sort of way they will listen sympathetically to the hon. and learned Member's appeal, is an essay in optimism—I shall not use the word"childish ", because it has been used too often—and an essay in the futile.
We have been treated to a remarkable tour d'horizon from the hon. and learned Member. It is his private moral world. While eccentricity on the Back Benches can often be entertaining, when it is translated on to the Front Bench it can become extremely confusing and misleading. For reasons that I shall give in a few minutes, I am still hopelessly confused about the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman and, more importantly, as he spoke from the Front Bench, about his party's position on a number of matters that were raised in interjections, which seemed to me to be matters of fundamental importance in connection with the purpose of this legislation. I am


confused about the basis on which the Conservative Party would wish to settle this strike and whether it would accept the findings of the Pay Research Unit and implement them. In addition, despite a veritable torrent of words from the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not know whether he is in favour of banning and making illegal strikes in the public sector, particularly in the courts, and if so how he defines those areas where those strikes should be illegal.
We got a blanket statement that there were areas where illegality should apply, but there was no attempt to explain, define or set out the rules. I am not sure whether we were being invited to assume that the Conservative Front Bench wanted to make illegal strikes right across the board. In fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman, carried away by his own command of language, got very near to suggesting that. I hope that those Conservative Members who speak later, especially the Front Bench spokesman, will put a little more definition on some of the more remarkable statements that have been made.
I do not welcome the Bill. I do not think that anyone could welcome it. But there is a recognition among Labour Members that some of the provisions are necessary. There will be no cavil from me in accepting that. Obviously—and I am glad that my right hon. Friend stressed this point—Labour Members accept that there is no way in which this legislation can get the courts back to normal. No legislation can do that, given the total withdrawal of labour by staff of the sheriff courts and the Court of Session. What the Bill can do is to safeguard certain essential rights. To some extent, it can ameliorate the consequences of the industrial action, which, by definition, is intended to cause inconvenience and is unashamedly doing so.
The only thing that will remedy the situation is a settlement. As we are in the business of appeals, it is almost futile to think that speeches in this House asking people to call off their industrial action at this stage are likely to be successful. But if my right hon. Friend was right in what he said the other day about back-dating, and if we have a Government assurance that phasing will be completed by April 1980, it seems to me that

the difference between the two sides is not such as to justify a continued and lengthy dispute. I very much hope that within the next two or three days there will be an offer on the table which can be the basis of proper negotiation as to the phasing, timing and implementation of the settlement. As a result, I hope that we shall be able to get people back to work very quickly indeed so that the situation which the Bill is designed to remedy will end almost before the legislation comes into effect.
I confess that I do not see this as a measure of meeting force with force, as was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire. It is something more important than that. It is an attempt to preserve individual rights which will be lost for ever if there is no legislation, as a result of which innocent people might be prejudiced in a serious and fundamental way. Having said that, there is no question in my mind that the Bill meets force by force, nor would I support it in the Lobbies if, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I believed that this was a first step to dictatorship.
The hon. and learned Gentleman welcomed the Bill, presumably, on the ground that it was a first step to dictatorship. That is perhaps explicable, given his general political viewpoint. But I do not see it for a moment as a first step towards dictatorship, and I do not suppose that anyone connected with its introduction saw it in that way.
It will obviously do something to remove the anomalies which could prejudice the individual, and on that basis it is necessary. Clause 2 relates to the extension of time limits. During the emergency debate the Conservative spokesman properly made the point that it would be monstrous if somebody who had a good claim—often, because of the intricacies and delays of the law, good claims do not come to the courts because actions are not raised until very late in the triennium—lost an action for reparations which had merit purely and simply because when his professional advisers got to the point of recognising that his position had to be protected, because of the protracted nature of the negotiations, they found that the courts were on strike and it was impossible to raise that action. It is right that the Government should act


at this stage to make it clear that they will not allow that to happen. That is one of the principal provisions of clause 2. That is exactly the kind of thing which it is important to meet at this time.
That is almost beyond controversy. But the most important part of the Bill in terms of argument is clause 5. I confess that I approached it with a somewhat sideways look, because I was a little wary about what was contained in it. I welcome the assurances given by my right hon. Friend that there is no question of sheriffs looking for help or recruiting staff in an attempt to get their courts operating on the very restricted basis on which they could operate—for matters such as full committals, bail appeals, and so on. That is all that is authorised at the present stage.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook. I gather that the Glasgow sheriffs have indicated that they would not wish that responsibility in any case. That is entirely sensible. But even for that limited number of hearings it is right that the individual sheriff should not be left to recruit. There is a wide spectrum of views and opinions on the shrieval benches of Scotland and no doubt there are some who might be tempted, but I am sure that the vast majority would not wish to have that responsibility.
I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State say that offers had already been made. I am not clear where the offers came from. I am aware of only one offer. That came from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who, with a broad brush, offered the services of the solicitors' profession. I admit that I come from the less refined part of the solicitors' world—I come from Glasgow, not Edinburgh—but my experience is that there is no enthusiasm among solicitors for the mantle which has been thrust upon them by the hon. Member. I should be surprised if there were any offers of that kind from solicitors in my part of the world. I should like to know where the offers which have been refused by the Secretary of State came from.
I would be sad if a policy decision were taken to move in outside staff. If someone in the sheriff clerk's department is prepared to undertake these duties, or

if a sheriff himself can do jobs that would normally be done by other members of the court in order to relieve pressures on the courts, that is fair. But I should be unhappy to see that principle widened, because that would escalate the industrial trouble in a way that could not be justified.
We have a duty to seek clarification from the Conservative Party about two simple issues. The first is the matter of the Pay Research Unit. I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), at the end of his closing speech in the emergency debate, whether the Conservative Party was in favour of implementing the Pay Research Unit recommendations now. In a sense that must seem an attractive option to the Opposition because they argue that there should be no strikes in this area. If one is removing the right to strike, there is perhaps a moral pressure upon a Government to implement an independent pay research recommendation without negotiation, without phasing and without any caveats as to the implications for economic management, inflation or public service pay levels.
The tone of the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire shows that he is not in favour of that. He made it clear that he saw this strike as a force majeure. He saw it as a bestial example of mob rule—to use his own kind of language—and as organised strength in a bad cause to beat the Government into submission.
If that is so, it does not sound as if he is in favour of implementing the Pay Research Unit recommendations immediately. He raises these issues and promises an answer, and though my hon. Friends and I may be obtuse we did not hear a clear one. I press the hon. and learned Member, and also the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, to make clear what the Conservative Party's position is on this issue, because they must have given it thought and must have a general view.

Mr. Fairbairn: The hon. Member says that I described this strike as the use of force in a bad cause to obtain advantage. Will he tell the House whether he is in favour, in any circumstances, of using force against innocent members of the


community for a cause, however good, in order to obtain advantage?

Mr. Dewar: Yes. I defend the right of a worker to withdraw his labour as a last resort. I said in the emergency debate that I thought there was a case, particularly if back-dating was allowed, for arguing that this strike was premature. I regret that we are in this situation, but I do not accept, as apparently I am being invited to do, the principle that all strikes are essentially wicked because force is used. I believe that there is a right to withdraw labour. What I am not clear about is in what circumstances the Conservatives say that labour should not be withdrawn. We had the impression from the hon. and learned Member that it would be over a wide sphere and a large number of employment areas. He has not, however, made it clear exactly why he would favour the withdrawal of labour being banned in this case.
I believe that there is a case for negotiation about the phasing-in of the Pay Research Unit recommendations. I think that the guarantees given by the Government are an entirely reasonable basis for continuing negotiations. That is why I should like to see them implemented speedily. I do not think there is anything silly about raising that issue. What is the Conservatives' view about a"no-strike"clause? I should also like to hear from the Conservative Party some clarification of its attitude towards strikes in the public service.
The hon. and learned Member used violent language. He spoke about strikes torturing innocent people. That was the extreme phrase that he used. It came through clearly that he is opposed to strikes in a general sense. That is fair enough. But I hope that as he is speaking from the Conservative Front Bench and, presumably, for his party, we shall hear from other Opposition Front Bench spokesmen what exactly are the circumstances in which strikes should be made illegal and on what grounds they would be made illegal. That is not an unfair request.
I take a more liberal view of trade unionists, perhaps because I have been one. The trade union to which I belong, the Law Society of Scotland, is extremely effective and powerful. The only one

that I can think of that is perhaps more effective is the Faculty of Advocates. It maintains an exclusive right to audience in the superior courts of Scotland, much to the benefit of those gentlemen who practise within it. There may be a case for that, but it ill behoves the hon. and learned Member, from the security of his trade union/professional association/vested interest, to sneer at those who have to use the right to withdraw their labour in order to improve their position.
I take a serious view of this strike, because I have made my living in the courts. I do not undervalue the courts. However, I do not think that the melodrama concerning the unique and damaging nature of the strike is justified. Strikes hurt many people. People are hurt when they have to boil their water because of a strike by Waterways Board employees. Firms are hurt when they experience a cash flow squeeze because of a transport drivers' strike in which they are not involved. All these activities are damaging and they underline the reason why strikes should be a last resort and why they should be implemented only when absolutely necessary. I am sure that every trade union official will agree with that.
This strike is not so unique that the people who are involved in it should be singled out for a statutory ban on the withdrawal of their labour. I have not had an intellectually satisfying explanation from the Conservative Front Bench as to why they should be so singled out.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is always difficult for him to stop in the middle of a sentence because often he uses only one main verb in the course of a speech. He accuses me of using the word"torture"and saying that it is emotive. I believe that if a member of society made the hon. Member's mother stand in the snow and drove the ambulance away when she was suffering from cancer, that might properly be described as torture. I should like to think that even the hon. Member's conscience might be tortured if that happened or if he was the ambulance driver and he drove away.
I am surprised that, as a lawyer, he has not read the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 and does not know what a trade union is under that Act. He wrongly describes a


professional association, unregistered and unaffiliated to the TUC, as a trade union. Let me remind him that both the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates are associations which protect the interests of the public. The hon. Member knows that he and I have a duty to obey instructions and to carry out the services that we are entitled to carry out, if anybody bids us, as an absolute professional rule. Nothing is entitled to interfere with that right of the citizen, and I would not allow it to do so.

Mr. Dewar: I am not attacking the Law Society of Scotland or the Faculty of Advocates, but I have a considerable number of reservations about some of their activities, as I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire has.
I accept that under the terms of the 1974 legislation they are not trade unions, but they perform effectively and powerfully the same role as trade unions. They have done a better job for their members than many trade unions, mainly because trade unions operate in areas which are less easy to organise.
The hon. and learned Member asked us to consider the cancer patient who is denied an ambulance. That is a powerful and coherent argument. What about the business which is prejudiced and collapses, causing the loss of jobs, because its cash flow is affected by a strike in which it is not involved? These are prices which we have to pay when men are driven finally to withdraw their labour. The logic of the hon. and learned Member's argument is that strikes should be illegal across the board.

Mr. Fairbairn: It is not.

Mr. Dewar: I understand that the Conservative Party does not agree with the hon. and learned Member. The logic of the hon. and learned Member's argument is that strikes should be made illegal. If that is not the position, the Opposition Front Bench should make clear where they draw the line. I want the areas to be defined and the argument to be defended. Simple and clear bites of definition and doctrine are involved. I look forward to the Opposition's reply.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I expressed my views in the debate

last week. It is disgraceful that sheriff clerks should behave as some of them have. They are meant to be professional people. They have a duty to the public. They are taking action for purely selfish reasons.
This is not a strike against wicked employers. It is a strike to compel the Government to give those involved more for their own benefit. The method that they employ is to disrupt the life of the community. The morals involved are those of the kidnapper who says"I shall kidnap you and unless somebody else pays up I shall kill you." I do not say that this is as bad, but the argument is the same.
A free society depends upon the bulk of the people acting according to the presupposition of a free society. They cannot call upon the Government to abide by the rules if they do not abide by them themselves. The presupposition is that the rule of law depends upon people accepting the common good and the common application of the law. Once the people cease to do that, there is no end to the ad hoc application of the law in the interests of the groups which happen to have power. The presupposition of a welfare society is that we take some notice of each others' welfare. The action of NUPE, for instance, will ultimately destroy the welfare society.
I wish to ask one or two questions about the Bill. Perhaps I should have tabled amendments. I have not done so because I do not pretend to understand the intricacies of the law. I am glad that I did not table an amendment. I thought that clause 5 meant that a judge could authorise persons to undertake certain duties. I am told that that is not so but that the Secretary of State is involved. That is an illustration of the difficulties facing the layman. I hope that we shall have a definition of the word"judge ".
It is important that people should understand the law. Are the Government satisfied that the Scottish people will be sufficiently informed about the Bill? I understand that it may be impossible to inform everybody whose legal position is affected, but I hope that there will be general knowledge throughout Scotland about what is being done.
Some unfortunate people in my constituency, as in others, are paying fines.


I understand that fines are not being accepted. Will the Bill mean that they are accepted?
School janitors made it impossible for others to carry out their duties because they removed the keys and, in some cases, the records. Is there power in the Bill to enable the courts to continue their work if the sheriff clerks or other officers attempt to obstruct that work?
Somebody, through no fault of his, may be injured as a result of passing the Bill. Is there any power to recompense such a person? Some people may be put to expense or harmed by the Bill. Will they have any redress? Perhaps these are Committee matters, but I should like light to be shed upon them.
This is the beginning of an extremely dangerous process. Do not let us be misled by stories that other strikes have been worse. We are indulging in emergency legislation in which we normally indulge only at a time of war. Once we begin on this path and the presuppositions of a free, legal and decent society break down, we shall experience such legislation again and again. Each Bill will be called in aid as a precedent for the next. Each Bill will be more stringent than the last. This is not a petty matter to be brushed aside. It is all too likely that it is the beginning of a process which could do great damage to the country.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was right to draw our attention to the seriousness of the Bill. I am not a lawyer, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman's reading of clause 5 is correct. Today we shall be considering amendments to give the clause the meaning that we believe it should have.
The Secretary of State ignored the political background to the dispute, perhaps for understandable reasons, but before the Bill goes into Committee the political considerations should be taken into account. This must be one of the saddest pieces of legislation that we have had to consider in the House. It is not the first time that emergency legislation has been necessary, but never before have we had to act in this way to safeguard the administration of the courts.
I respect the Secretary of State's determination to take this action. It cannot have been easy for him to persuade his Cabinet colleagues, particularly as several of them recently joined the picket lines themselves.
Sad as the Bill is, it is fitting that it should be introduced by the Labour Party—the party which worships at the altar of trade unionism and which now finds that its own trade union monster is completely out of control. The weapon that Labour Members used to get into office five years ago has been turned on themselves, to the detriment of good government and the good name of civilisation in this country, which, until a few years ago, was the envy of the world. Ministers have only themselves to blame for this state of affairs. The only cure is a long period in Opposition in which to reflect on the policies of appeasement which have brought about the near collapse of our system of justice in Scotland. The lesson of the past few years is that strikes will continue as long as they pay off and are worth while. That is why this Bill is so important. It attempts, in a small but significant way, to reverse the value of going on strike.
The Bill has invited threats of further strike action or escalation of action if it is enacted. These threats have been made in conditions that are already not far short of a general strike in the public sector. So be it. The policy of appeasement has to stop, as the Secretary of State has recognised by introducing this Bill and also in his other dealings with Civil Service disputes at the Scottish Office. I do not know whether the civil servants taking part in these disputes were balloted before the action was taken. I do not know whether they questioned why Scotland should be chosen as a pilot scheme for action in the courts which may spark off a much larger dispute throughout the United Kingdom.
It is interesting that the public sector should provide this Labour Government with such difficulties. The Health Service is in a state of near shambles. In the Civil Service and the nationalised industries many of these difficulties have occurred in bodies which are the Labour Government's own offspring. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)


remarked that these strikers are behaving like children. They are, in fact, the spoilt children of Britain today. They seem to have little care for the hardship they impose on others. They are all anxious to make up for the effects of inflation on their pay packets during the past few years. They write to Members of Parliament asking us to support each and every special case. I believe that every Member of Parliament, certainly every Scottish Member, has received letters from civil servants, university lecturers, laboratory technicians in the Health Service and teachers asking for special attention to be given to their case.
There was no point in the pay policy of the past few years if everyone now seeks to catch up and believes that the wage award for the next 12 months should compensate for the smaller wage awards made during the past few years. Pay settlements must continue to be moderate, particularly in the public sector. That is why, regrettably, this Bill is necessary. As I think the Secretary of State recognises, there is not sufficient money to make awards that would enable everyone to catch up on his 1974 position.
I should like to make two further points. I hope that the civil servants on strike will consider their own personal position on the basis that we cannot afford to have shop floor trade union attitudes in the Civil Service. Loyalty to the service should still mean something. It is all very well having trade union solidarity. The empty Labour Benches suggest that there is some trade union solidarity going on elsewhere. Whatever loyalties one has to a trade union, they must take second place, at least in the Civil Service, to a sense of duty and loyalty to that service. Every civil servant should wish to set an example to industry. There can be no excuse for people whose jobs are guaranteed behaving like sheep at the behest of trade union officials. I fear that is what is taking place in this dispute.
I hope that the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate, in the circumstances in which this Bill is being debated in all its stages today, will give fair consideration to the detailed amendments which have been put forward by my hon. Friends as well as those tabled by my hon. Friends which obviously deal with some

of the Government's omissions in the Bill. Given the spirit of co-operation that we hope exists to deal with this short but important, Bill, I trust that the amendments that have been tabled will be given fair consideration by the Government.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. George Thompson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for my voice. Unfortunately, although I am my party's parliamentary spokesman on health, this does not guarantee my immunity from the common cold. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) have touched on the need to recognise that we are all members of society, one of another, and that we should bear that in mind whenever we feel ourselves obliged to move towards strikes. I agree with that approach. I thought, however, that the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire was speaking about a moral Utopia in which human nature and original sin had been abolished. I do not know whether this will be part of the Conservative Party's next election manifesto—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: There will be plenty of sin in the manifesto.

Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend is no doubt right. I support the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in his call for the Tory Front Bench to say whether the next Conservative Government, if there ever is one, will seek to abolish strikes altogether in order to compel us to recognise that we are members of society, one of another, or whether this will be done only in selected areas. We should be told. The electorate in Scotland will want to know whether the right to strike is to be taken away totally or only in selected areas. If it is to be done in selected areas, we should know which ones. People working in those areas might take umbrage and not turn out to vote Conservative.
We must bear in mind that this is not a national dispute. It is a United Kingdom dispute. [HON. MEMBERS:"It is a national dispute."] It is a United Kingdom dispute. The situation that we are seeking partially to remedy is only part


of a much wider situation. The House must proceed warily in what it does today. It will be no good if, having passed the Bill, the result is an escalation of this conflict and the creation of a deal of bad blood between the courts and court officials for many a long day after the overt dispute is over.
I had intended to refer to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire when he went out of his way, in the debate last week, to make copious references to mob rule. He did not go as far as to say that the sheriff clerks constituted a mob, but he sailed as close to that as his prudence allowed him. Today he has spoken of highwaymen and torturers. We must ask ourselves: are the sheriff clerks and others in dispute really highwaymen and torturers? Are they behaving like mobs? I have no doubt that phrases like"mob rule ","highwaymen"and"torturers"go down well in heaving Tory bosoms. Do they conduce either to ending this dispute rapidly or to providing the atmosphere for reconciliation after the dispute is over? I think not.
Vote-catching speeches may be all the rage at the moment. I often see Tory speakers in the House cast their eyes upwards. I had naturally assumed that their eyes were directed to Heaven in prayer, no doubt to obtain the grace of the happy death of the Government, but I have come to the conclusion, most reluctantly, that they move a little to the right of that blessed place to take a quick look at the Press Gallery to see whether the content of their speeches is being noted for their favourite daily newspapers.
The real and lasting solution to the dispute is not the Bill but a return to work. Are the Government trying as hard as they can to obtain a settlement, or are they leaving the dispute to run on for a while to chasten the unions involved? The Government are well aware that the courts affected are hundreds of miles away from this place. Had the Law Courts in the Strand or the Old Bailey been affected, would the Government have been taking their time in such a lordly way? I rather think that they would not.
The Bill does not touch upon the vexed issue of back-dating any award, an issue which several hon. Members, including myself, pressed the Lord Advocate to

answer last week. Would it not now be appropriate for the Government to come completely clean? They could even, perhaps, resolve the dispute by doing just that.
I remind the House that during the debate last week the Secretary of State said:
 There is no question but that the settlement will date from 1 April, even if the settlement is not reached until after 1 April. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I have checked on that particular matter.
He said a little later:
 In my view, however, if the negotiations go beyond 1 April, there is no reason why the settlement should not be back-dated to 1 April.
That seems clear, but it appeared today that the Prime Minister is by no means so certain as the Secretary of State. I hope that the Government will respond and that we shall have complete clarity between the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the unions involved.
Last week I mentioned the problem of the backlog. The Bill does nothing to deal with the backlog that is building up as a result of the strike. It is a backlog which, certainly at the Glasgow sheriff court, is being added to an existing backlog. Perhaps the Government cannot tackle the period after the emergency dealt with in the Bill—it deals only with the emergency—but will they take the opportunity today to give a general outline of how they propose to tackle the backlog? I offer one or two tentative suggestions. For example, we could increase the number of sheriffs. We could ask for one or two sheriffs to come out of retirement to assist. Will the Government give us an inkling of how their minds are moving?
The Bill is not without its difficulties. The House must be tempted to speculate on what is being done to reduce the effect of the strike not by open legislation in the House but by administrative decisions, whether expressed in writing or by word of mouth. For instance, is there any truth in the rumour that the police have been instructed to arrest only major criminals? Will the Government assure us categorically that there is no truth in that rumour? Citizens have a right to know that justice is being administered even-handedly, even in an emergency.
I comment briefly on the idea that those other than sheriff clerks should be allowed to carry out some of the work of sheriff clerks, I note that the Bill refers to"any person ". The mind boggles at who might be involved. In last week's debate I said:
 I wonder whether this "—
that is, using other than sheriff clerks to perform the functions of sheriff clerks—
 would not be a recipe for chaos. I should have thought one would require experts trained in the procedures to function as sheriff clerks."—[Official Report, 13 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 288–329.]
It is an idea that could be a recipe for chaos in several ways. It could inflame the dispute by appearing to provide for strike-breaking. It could lead to muddle, both during the dispute and after. We do not know what qualifications the volunteer staff would have. The Bill refers to"any person ". The volunteer staff could conceivably muddle files and papers so that what the sheriff clerks left in good order when they entered upon the dispute may be found by them to be in confusion on their return to their desks. If that were to happen, there would surely be a further delay in clearing the backlog.
I support the Bill, with a certain reluctance. It could conceivably inflame the dispute, although sincerely I hope that it will not do so. However, in the end we must surely consent to a reduction of the rights of some individuals—the sheriff clerks in this instance—to guarantee the rights of those who are involved with the law, either as alleged criminals or as litigants. They, too, have their rights. In many instances they are unprotected except by the law, and they require the protection of the House.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) was less than fair to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). If we had a Utopia, there would not be any necessity for law. It is precisely because my hon. and learned Friend is a realist and understands that we do not have a Utopia that he argues that we must have the proper functioning of our legal system.
There lies the fallacy of the argument of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden

(Mr. Dewar). The law cannot be regarded as being in the same category as the water supply or transport services. In a free and democratic society the law is fundamental to every citizen. Therefore the Government rightly have a responsibility to maintain the law. That respossibility is above and beyond any other.
Much as we regret the necessity, the Government are right to introduce the Bill. I am glad to support it. I, like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), view the introduction of measures such as the Bill, important and justified as they may be, as forming extra and emergency legislation to maintain the law, which, as I have said, is fundamental to our society. The necessity to introduce such measures is a judgment on the way in which we conduct our affairs. It is a process that we must not enter lightly. It is something that we have to question and consider carefully.
I take up one other remark made by the hon. Member for Galloway. Let us be under no illusion about the distress, problems and difficulties that such disputes cause for ordinary individuals. This morning I received a letter from an ex-constituent whom I have helped in the past. Unfortunately, she is involved in a divorce action. She went to the courts to obtain an order to enable her to have access to her children. Not surprisingly, the court rightly deferred its decision so that various social reports could be obtained. In the circumstances, that was a reasonable and not surprising action to take. However, my constituent now finds that there is no prospect of the second court hearing taking place to consider the social worker's report. That is serious. The mother is trying to obtain access through the courts in a proper way. However, court hearings are suspended because of the action of those who operate the courts.
The constituent I mentioned does not know her position. She is in great distress of mind, not knowing whether she will obtain access to her children. Regardless of the recommendations of the social workers, no one knows to what the children may be subjected in the interim period. That leads to distress for the mother, who is unable to obtain access to her children, and for the children. That is regrettable.
Clause 5 covers the situation where the Secretary of State is prepared, as a matter of policy, to allow a judge to bring in other people to do the work. There is nothing in the Bill that will bring about the alleviation of distress. I beg the Lord Advocate to clarify the situation of such a person in relation to this Bill. Applicants will not be helped unless the Secretary of State is prepared, under clause 5, to authorise a judge to appoint any other person to carry out the work that should have been carried out by those involved in the dispute. I raise the matter in this sense. I hope that those who are party to the dispute will realise, in pure human terms, the distress and agony which they are causing and which is demonstrated by the case of the individual I mentioned.
I was surprised at what the Secretary of State said about clause 5. It enables a judge to
 authorise any person to do any such thing in relation to such proceedings.
When Parliament gives power to a judge, it is there for the judge or the judiciary generally to use. However, the Secretary of State said that that power would not be used unless he made a policy decision that it should be used. I pressed the Secretary of State in my intervention—I hoped that it would save time in Committee—to tell us in what sense his policy decision would be given power under this legislation. Surely the judiciary either does or does not have the power. If power is to be exercised at a later stage at the discretion of the Secretary of State, let that be stated in the Bill so that we may arrive at an opinion on it.
A fundamental of justice is that the judiciary is independent of the Executive. I am not aware of any other cases where the judiciary is subject to the policy decisions of the Executive. I have heard instances where the Government have been challenged to tell the courts to perform certain actions. However, Ministers have rightly said that they had no right to give a direction to the courts or the judiciary.
I understand that the Secretary of State does not wish to enter easily into using the powers under clause 5 until he believes it to be necessary. If that is so, let him state in the Bill that the use of this power will be delayed. Let us

know the procedures under which that power will be introduced. Clause 5 is totally unsatisfactory. It is not in the best traditions of justice. I hope that the Lord Advocate will explain the matter when he winds up the debate.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I have an observation to make about the Labour Party. Today we are discussing an emergency Bill which is needed because this is the first time for 400 years that the courts in Scotland have been closed. Present in the House are the Lord Advocate, two Ministers, the Scottish Whip and the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. It is disgraceful that there is not one other member of the Labour Party present. Nor is there one other Labour Member of Parliament from a Scottish constituency. I make a special exception of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has been present for most of the debate and who made an important contribution. It is deplorable that hon. Members—whatever their views—have not seen fit to be present, much less make a contribution, during a debate on an emergency Bill of great importance to Scotland.
I start by making a request to the Secretary of State. There has been a great deal of confusion about whether any offer to those on strike—or other civil servants—would be back-dated to 1 April if agreement were reached after that date. The Minister stated last week in a previous debate on this matter his understanding that any agreement would be retrospective. He said that there was no urgency to reach agreement by 1 April. That interpretation is disputed by many trade union officials involved in the dispute. There is considerable doubt in Scotland and in the Civil Service unions as to the truth of the matter. The Minister has had one full week in which to find out whether his observation was correct and justified.
I hope that either the Secretary of State or the Minister who is to reply will say categorically whether any settlement reached will be retrospective to 1 April. I shall be happy to give way if the Secretary of State wishes to make that clear. There has been grave doubt about the matter. The Secretary of


State's contributions appear to have only added to the confusion. I see that he does not want to make a statement now. I hope he will ensure that the Lord Advocate or the Minister who replies will say whether the Secretary of State's statement last week was right or wrong. This matter must be known to the Government. It should be known to the Civil Service unions if an early resolution of the problem is to be achieved.
Everyone must welcome the emergency Bill as making a small contribution towards curing the chaos in the Scottish courts system. It is deplorable that we have had to wait for several weeks of an emergency for this Bill to be introduced. There is nothing in the Bill that could not have been introduced when the dispute began. All its provisions were as relevant then as they are now. All the Bill's provisions would have made a contribution from the moment the strike began in February. We must, and are entitled to, know why the House and the country have had to wait so long for the Government to bring forward this measure. Is the delay due to the fact that the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues were not willing to allow it to come forward? Has there been disagreement within the Government and the Labour Party, or between both? We must assume that there are circumstances now which did not prevail two weeks ago and which have resulted in the legislation now being brought forward.
We are entitled to suspect that, but for the pressure being brought by the Opposition, this Bill might not, even now, have surfaced and that not even this small and modest contribution towards dealing with the chaos in the Scottish courts would have been attempted.
The Secretary of State said—I believe him—that the Bill would make a modest contribution towards helping to solve the problem. It is a miserable shame that that contribution was not made two weeks ago when the strike began, as we might now have seen the fruits of the Bill and its benefits to the overall situation.
The dispute is part of a general Civil Service dispute. It is not simply that the courts are on strike. Many Government officers are taking similar industrial action. The computer at the Scottish Office is not functioning. A significant amount of harm is being done. It was reported that

as a result of the industrial action neither teachers' pensions nor benefits to teachers' dependants were being paid. We know of old-age pensioners being denied payment of national savings certificates and premium bonds, apart from other grievances. These actions are taken by trade unionists against fellow trade unionists. We are entitled to comment on the sad way in which the situation has deteriorated in recent months.
I know of one somewhat amusing consequence of the industrial dispute. The Secretary of State, quite correctly, announced last Friday that officials in the Scottish Office must do certain work that was otherwise normally done by their striking colleagues. A certain Mr. Ken Thomas, a leading Civil Service trade unionist, said that this was a disgraceful suggestion and that if the Government insisted on carrying on in this way his union would consider taking legal action. It clearly had not dawned on Mr. Ken Thomas that it would be somewhat difficult in present circumstances for him to take legal action, because his own trade unionists were preventing anyone from taking any legal action on any issue anywhere in Scotland for the foreseeable future. That illustrates the ludicrous state of our industrial relations.
We shall obviously have an opportunity in Committee to consider the contents of the Bill, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that, if the Government wish to supersede the clear terms of the Bill, it is deplorable that they have not put their desire into the Bill. The Bill specifically, and without qualification, gives the judges the right to authorise other persons to carry out certain work. The Secretary of State is right in saying that there is an amendment dealing with that matter, but it is an Opposition amendment, not a Government amendment. Unless the Government intend to accept that amendment—and, if they do, they should have indicated so at an earlier stage—the Secretary of State is saying, in effect, that a fundamental matter of Executive interference with the judiciary is to take place not by Act of Parliament but contrary to the apparent implications of an Act of Parliament. That is not a sound basis for legislation, and I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on it.
The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to those of us who believe that the time has come for certain limitations to be made on industrial action by certain public sector officials. He indicated that, it the court officials were on strike, the position was no worse than when strike action was taken by other groups. I suggest, with respect, that it is quite different. The hon. Gentleman knows that for many years the Army and the police force have not had the right to take industrial action. The reason for that has not been a philosophical distinction made by Parliament, or by successive Governments of all political views, but that it has been appreciated that the job of the Army and of the police is that of law and order. If those whose special responsibility it is to ensure law and order and the fabric of our society are to withdraw their labour, not only are problems and inconvenience caused for the public but the very sinews of the State are endangered and the very cohesion of society is threatened.
To a real extent, those involved in the administration of the courts are in an identical position. The job of the police cannot be looked at in isolation from the job of the courts. The police and the courts are two sides of the same coin. It is the job of the police, if they apprehend people, to ensure that they are brought to court so that their alleged offences may be dealt with. It cannot be said that it is right for the police to be prevented from striking, because otherwise they would not be able to catch criminals, but that nevertheless it is all right for the courts to stop functioning in such a way that there is no means by which society can deal with the criminals once they have been apprehended by the police.

Mr. Dewar: I do not want to be put in the position of saying that I think that a strike in the courts is unimportant. I do not think that, because it has serious consequences. But there is an important point of difference between the police and the court strikers. If the police go on strike, there will be crimes committed and those concerned will not be apprehended or detected. There will, indeed, then be a fundamental effect on the fabric of society. Unpleasant though it is, there are already some very long delays in the

administration of justice. I deplore the fact that the necessity to withdraw labour will lengthen those delays, but at least justice will be done, even if it is delayed. With the time-bar provisions of the Bill, people will be able to exercise their rights and criminal trials will take place. It is not the same as it would be with a police strike, in which event there would be a once and for all loss of detection and of law enforcement.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member is wrong, with respect, on two fundamental counts. Charges have already been dropped in some cases specifically because of this strike action. For the most part, these have so far been relatively minor charges, but the courts have been on strike for only a fortnight. What will happen if the strike continues for three months, as the civil servants are threatening? Clearly we might well be in a position in which a large number of other charges will be dropped, not because of any inadequacy of evidence or because the prosecuting authorities now believe that the persons concerned are innocent and entitled to be acquitted, but because the courts are not in a position to carry out their duty. That is the first flaw in the hon. Member's argument.
The second flaw in the hon. Member's argument is even more grave. This year, for the first time in the 400 years of the courts' existence in Scotland, court officials are on strike. Who is to say that it will not happen next year and the year after that? Who is to say that we are not reaching a stage at which it will be normal not only for car workers, miners and those in manufacturing industry to go on strike but also those involved in the administration of the State and the administration of justice? We seem to be reaching a stage at which it is regarded as perfectly proper for them, as a matter of course, to assume that, whenever they have a grievance against any Government, it is perfectly proper for them to withdraw their labour and thereby bring the courts to a halt.
Are we to say that we are quite willing to anticipate, for the foreseeable future, every year the courts ceasing to operate for two or three weeks? Is not this an invitation to a system of industrial relations which would bring exactly the same destructive consequences as would arise from allowing industrial action to be taken by the police or the


Armed Forces? We are dealing here not simply with public servants but with public servants the nature of whose employment is concerned with the very fabric of the State and without whom the State cannot continue. It is not unreasonable in such circumstances for the community to apply to those persons the same restrictions as it has applied for many years to the police and the Armed Forces.
As I said in the debate last week, we have seen the nurses, a group with a legitimate grievance, nevertheless refusing to inhibit or destroy the interests of the community in their pursuit of that grievance. I am glad that the Government have responded in a more generous way than they did originally. They have made an offer to the nurses of what is said to be about 13 per cent., a figure far greater than was originally offered. That was not because the nurses went on strike. Indeed, in many ways the Government are far more embarrassed and put in a far more difficult position by employees who refuse to go on strike, because of their sense of public duty, and despite their deep sense of grievance, than they are by the sort of action taken by these civil servants at the present time.
We have to find a new system of industrial relations, but in the meantime, as long as this industrial action continues the Bill, puny effort though it is, is a modest contribution to ensuring that the very minimum capacity of the courts is allowed to continue for the foreseeable future.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: There are one or two remarkable features of the debate. The most remarkable is that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and one or two others have totally failed to appreciate the extreme seriousness of the position that we are discussing.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) put his finger firmly on the problem when, speaking from the experience of one who has been in this House for longer than most of us, he pointed out the extremely serious nature of what we are discussing. Here we have the Government—admittedly in their dying days—introducing emergency legislation to suspend a number of our

usual liberties under the law, in order to enable or help them to break a strike. That is the purpose of the Bill.
It is amazing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) pointed out, that this has taken place with virtually no attendance by Labour Back Benchers. Apart from the hon. Member for Gascadden and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who made a very useful contribution to our discussions, no one else has been present on the Labour Back Benches. That in itself is a most important point that should be registered and realised because it says a great deal about why we have got to the point where the Bill is necessary at all.
The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate are right, of course, to bring in the Bill. It is absolutely necessary. Let them never have to say that in their hour of need the Opposition refused to support them. It is perhaps not unfair of me to add, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I can remember many other Oppositions within the last 15 years who would not have dreamt of raising a finger to help a Government in this position. If there had been any faces on the Labour Benches. I would have expected them to be blushing scarlet at that remark, because the irresponsibility of all Labour Members, from the Prime Minister downwards, during previous far less serious industrial disputes in the early 1970s has been thrown back in their faces today, for we have today a Socialist Secretary of State—perhaps I should correct that and say a Secretary of State in a Socialist Government—coming to this House with legislation to help him to break a strike.
It is not an isolated instance, nor is it accidental, nor, as the hon. Member for Garscadden would like to think, is it a small local difficulty that can be shrugged aside. It is an inevitable consequence of the policies, attitudes and organisation of the Labour Government over the past six or seven years. Day in and day out, week in and week out, they have encouraged militancy. Moderate and sensible Members of the Labour Party have been seen on picket lines supporting various illegal causes. We warned them many times over the past years where this would lead. With the Bill we see one of the milestones that we feared and have been warning against for so long.
I well remember when we started on the new and deplorable chapter in our history. It was when the previous Labour Government, led by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), condoned the activities of the rent rebels of Clay Cross and Clydebank. That was done in the face of the law, by using law officers, and it devalued the standards of impartiality of the law. They are aware of that and are embarrassed. Compared to this issue it was trivial, yet that was the first step, and what has followed is inevitable. Worse will follow unless the community as a whole, including the Labour Party, comes to its senses. It must realise that in a civilised society the rule of law, support for the rule of law, and the supremacy and independence of the rule of law and the judiciary must be placed above party interests, Unless that is done we shall look back to this day, which is sufficiently grave, and consider that it was not so bad. There will be worse to come.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly struck a note of alarm about what the Secretary of State was doing. Although I support what the Secretary of State is doing, I do not condone the events that have led us to this position.
At the centre of the problem we must consider why respectable—and reasonable—members of society, such as those who work in our judicial system, the sheriff clerks and their officers and officials, take such action. Those of us who come into contact with them have a great respect for them. Their work is of a high standard. I have always believed that officers of a court were professionally competent and had a high standard of conduct. But these responsible and respectable members of society have been driven to the desperate strait of withdrawing their labour—although that phrase is not appropriate when applied to such workers.
They have been driven to that, first, by realising that in society ordered by a Labour Government it pays hand over fist to use industrial strength. Those who use it get more money, and those who do not use it do not get more money. Although I believe that it is wrong, they feel that unless they take such action they will not be heard by the Government. I have told all those to whom I have spoken that I wish they would go

back to work and that they should never have gone on strike, although I appreciate the feelings that led to that action.
Secondly, the Government have been leading the country to this position over the past five or six years. They have made it clear that they do not appreciate the feelings of responsible members of society. It is therefore essential for people to look after their own interests and ignore the standards of public service that previously they had taken for granted as part of their careers and of the past history of their jobs. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) rightly drew our attention to the fact that we have not only rights but obligations.
After years of inflation and difficulty, I wonder how many categories of people genuinely believe that they are undervalued, underpaid and ignored. There are not hundreds but thousands all over the country, and one does not have to look far from here to find them. The message of the Government is that these categories of workers will not be listened to unless they act irresponsibly, and the Government are reaping the harvest of that irresponsibility. They richly deserve every embarrassing moment as the Bill inches its way through the House.
The Labour Benches have misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally, the views of almost every speaker from this side of the House. I thoroughly sympathise with the feelings of those who are striking in the courts, but I do not condone their decision to strike. I wish that they would go back to work at once, and my sympathy will be 10 times greater when they do so.
I am sure that the Government never wished to get into this position. They will not agree with much of what I say, but they should consider carefully our views. In the quietness and solitude of their homes they should consider whether every word is not true. They have brought upon themselves these grave consequences by breaching the sacred principle that in a democratic free society the rule and practice of law, and the judiciary that crowns the rule of law, are sacrosanct and must remain so over sectional interests, personal wishes and party politics. That is the long-term message of this grim day. I hope that the Government will take it to heart.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that this is a grim day. It is indeed. He did well to emphasise that the Government today are reaping what they sowed. They have encouraged militancy at every point from the day when the Leader of the House gave way to the miners five years ago. Every day that has passed since then, they have encouraged people to think that might is right and that if a person causes enough trouble and misery he will get his way.
None the less, although the Government deserve what they have got, the people of this country do not. We should be sympathising with them. It is with great regret that I support this Bill, but I do support it. In doing so I shall make two points briefly, because I spoke on this matter during the debate last week.
First, we all know that the civil servants involved, particularly those at the lower end of the scale, have a substantial point in their claim. I am referring not to the sheriff clerks on £10,000 a year but to those who are being paid the almost incredible sum of £1,600 a year. But whether they are justified in their claim, they are certainly not justified in the actions that they are taking to achieve that claim. That is an absolute truth—the claim may be justified but the actions cannot be justified.
One reason why they cannot be justified is that they are causing too much misery. In fact, the misery they are causing is out of all balance with the difference between what these people are being paid now and what they would be paid. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) gave one example of the misery.
Another reason why the action is out of all proportion to the claim is that the civil servants are putting at risk something which is much too important—the very fabric of law and order. Justice must be above all other interests. It was typical of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that he sought to equate the disruption of justice with the disruption of our lorry transport system. That shows his total misunderstanding of the gravity of the situation that we are debating today.
My second point is that civilised society cannot exist if the law cannot be enforced.

That is what we are seeing now—the law is not being enforced, whether it is a case of a child going to her mother or whether a breach of the road traffic regulations is dropped. One or two shoplifting cases have been dropped, and crimes are being committed which will not even be tried. Unless we can enforce the law, we cannot support civilised society.
A number of us have been subjected to a bit of misunderstanding on these matters. The hon. Member for Garscadden paid me what he thought was a compliment the other day when he said that I was advancing a surprisingly liberal attitude on a certain matter. I said then that the civil servants involved in the dispute had a perfect right to strike. Personally, I am extremely reluctant to remove the right to strike from anyone. This is one of the ultimate safeguards of the individual vis-a-vis the State, big employers or other groups. I believe that more emphasis should be put on the individual and less on the big groups such as the trade unions, the employers or the State. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) pointed out, this might be the first of many strikes that we see in the courts, horrifying prospect though that is. If civil servants see that they are getting away with it, they may try it again. Therefore, society must be prepared to take steps to protect itself against that happening.
It could be argued that a precedent is required. If so, the police do not have the right to strike. Therefore, why is it wrong to take from those who run the courts the right to strike? The Scottish National Party claims that in saying this we are saying that all strikes should be abolished. That is so ridiculous that I would not bother to mention it, but no doubt The Scotsman will put it in big headlines tomorrow, together with photographs of SNP Members who are not even here. Of course that is not what we are saying.
I hope that the Conservative Party will make it clear in the next manifesto that we think that the right to strike should be exchanged in this instance for a guarantee that the pay of these civil servants is kept up to standard. We are taking away one right and giving another—that of guaranteed payment. That is


a fair deal for the civil servants, and society would benefit. We cannot go on as we are at the moment.
For those reasons, I hope that the House will support the Bill.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I shall speak for only a few moments in welcoming this Bill. We accept its introduction into the House, however reluctantly, because this is such a serious situation. It is incredible that in 1979 we have to produce emergency regulations to sustain justice in Scotland. However, the Bill only puts justice into limbo. It does not provide it as speedily as it should be provided.
My hon. Friends were right to highlight the fact that this Government's actions over the past five years are coming home to roost. I have made my position clear on many of the points which I raised in the debate last week. At 6.59 p.m. in that debate the Lord Advocate said that he would reply to those points as quickly as possible. At the time he had only another minute to go, so I have been waiting ever since in keen anticipation of his replies. Some have been answered by the Secretary of State today and I am grateful for that. I hope that the Government will spell out in the winding-up speech a much broader picture for the general public in Scotland so that they can appreciate exactly what will happen when the Bill passes into law and how their problems will be affected.
I know that Government policy is to play this in as low a key as possible and pretend that nothing is happening, but I hope that we and the press will emphasise that justice is not taking place in our country at present. The Government must explain the situation loudly and clearly to the people of Scotland and allay their fears. They must spell out the position on civil actions. The Secretary of State indicated that everything is now retrospective to 23 February, but he must spell out how this affects those who were on the verge of bringing actions at that time. Are any cases time-barred by the dilatory action of the Government in introducing the Bill?
I asked the Lord Advocate last week about motoring cases. I am sure that he would have replied if the time had

been available. Many people who are to be prosecuted for minor cases have forwarded their licences to the court. On the days that their cases should have been heard, their licences were temporarily suspended for the period of the hearings. The clerks are now on strike and cannot return their licences. What is the validity of the licences from the day on which the cases should have been heard? There are many people in that difficult position who would like to know where they stand.
I appreciate that the reason why we are having this debate is that jury trials cannot take place. I should like to bring home to the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State that a number of men who are presently awaiting trial in prisons have to be retained under high security. That places a greatly added burden on our short-staffed prison service, and I hope that the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.
I asked the Lord Advocate about cases that require speedy justice, for example, football hooligans. An offence on a Saturday requires justice, it possible, on the following Monday or Tuesday Presumably, these cases will go into the pile and it may be six months before they are heard or perhaps they will be dropped If they are heard, it will be after a long delay that the witnesses will have to recall what happened and the speedy administration of justice will not take place.
Many of my hon. Friends are concerned about clause 2, the timetable and when the strike will be concluded. Where do the Government stand today in relation to negotiations? How near are they to resolving the strike? No hon. Member has condoned the strike—we have all criticised it strongly. We appreciate that it has to come to a conclusion and that it has to be negotiated by the present Government. We have heard statements from Ministers—particularly from the Lord Privy Seal—and from the unions. These statements conflict. Surely the matter can be resolved and explained to the House today. Obviously the Government believe that they are right, but the case of the unions cannot be so blatantly incorrect that it should be thrown out without a fair discussion. I should like the Lord Advocate, when he winds up the debate, to explain where we stand and


what will happen next. When will the Lord Privy Seal hold his next meeting? Or will the Secretary of State hold the next meeting?
The union seems to be saying that it will not accept staged increases of the various types that the Government have put forward over recent months. It is demanding the full increase now. The Government, of course, have made out the case for the other side. Will the Lord Advocate spell out today what measures will be taken for the resolution of the strike and the length of time that the Act will be in force? That is crucial to the debate.
I join my colleagues in wishing the Bill a speedy passage today. But the Government must not in any way try to reduce their responsibility for the existence of the strike and for their dilatoriness in bringing the Bill before the House.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The processes of justice in Scotland have suffered a coronary attack as a result of the dispute. No hon. Member should be under any misapprehension about that. Considerable distress has been caused by the strike, not just for those accused of crimes, whose legal rights might be at issue, but also for those who are dependent upon the courts' confirmation of resources with which to run their households. Legal actions for debt have also been held up. These are important matters which have had an impact upon the daily lives of our citizens.
Apart from the provisions of the Bill, it is important that the dispute should be solved as quickly as possible. I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). Clearly, the backlog of work which will affect the courts will continue long after the dispute is resolved. There have been complaints time and again about delays in certain sheriff courts. Questions are tabled every month about visits to the sheriff court in Glasgow because of the insufficiency of the facilities provided there to deal with the backlog.
I had hoped that when the Criminal Justice Bill became an Act indictable proceedings would have been concluded within one year. That Bill still has to go through the House and Report stage and it is now under severe scrutiny and

attack because of the inability of the authorities to be able to put it into effect if it is enacted in its present form.
Will the Government re-examine the confusion that has developed about backdating? Much criticism has been made of those who withdrew their labour prior to the date of negotiation—1 April 1979. But if there was no question of backdating a future awards, the negotiations had to start before 1 April. Otherwise, those employed in the sheriff courts and in the quarter sessions would lose backdated increases in pay if the settlement was not achieved until, for example, May or June. A clear statement should be made by the Government that any settlement will be back-dated to 1 April. That might well be conducive to the ending of the dispute.
Most of the clauses in the Bill contain proposals to lessen the effects of the emergency and can be seen to have some potential effect. But clause 5 raises problems—apart from the embarrassing ones raised earlier that it may involve us in a"blacklegs' charter ", which worried the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), even if clause 5 permitted judges to employ authorised persons to carry out certain proceedings within the courts, where will the skilled labour be obtained to put it into effect? My experience of sheriff clerks—I have no experience of quarter sessions officials—is that they are very skilful. Their advice about court procedure is called upon day in and day out by solicitors. They have picked up practical knowledge, apart from their theoretical training, about the procedures of courts and how they should be conducted.
The High Court of Justiciary has also made clear in certain appeals that the procedures adopted in lower courts are particularly important, not just in relation to their adjectival nature but because the accuracy of the minute-taking of the proceedings may be important in relation to an appeal.
I cannot see any person, whether legally qualified or not, being able to take up the skilled work done in the sheriff courts. The Secretary of State—or the Lord Advocate—owes the House an explanation of what the Government have in mind in connection with the enabling powers conferred by the Bill.
I should like to mention in passing one amendment that has not been selected for debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. It would not be in order for the hon. Gentleman to do so.

Mr. Wilson: In that case, I shall have to raise the matter in the clause stand part debate—a course which I had wished to avoid.
The real problem in relation to clause 5 will be finding professional and skilled people who will be able to give help. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) was right when he said that amateurs taking over the work could cause more confusion than if they were not brought in. Bringing in people from outside must be a last resort to deal with cases that a sheriff may identify as emergencies requiring urgent attention.
It is sad that we have to deal with this sort of legislation, but in relation to certain civic rights—the 110-day rule and the triennial prescription—some action is urgently desirable.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: I intend to be very brief. I appear to be the last speaker from the Back Benches and hon. Members no doubt wish to get on to the Committee stage.
It is important to point out that, on this serious day for our country, the main contributions in the debate have come from Scottish Tories. There have been fleeting entrances and speeches by members of the minor parties, but the Government Benches have been notoriously empty and contributions from them have been notoriously scarce in this vital debate.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who is muttering from a sedentary position, entered the Chamber for the first time only a minute ago.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall not stay long to listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fairgrieve: What worries me is the difference between the way that my hon. Friends are reacting now and the way that the Labour Party reacted in 1974 in

circumstances that were not all that dissimilar from those that we face today. That leads me on to worry about the refusal, or the inability, of the Labour Party to do anything about passing any legislation about the growing and dangerous power of certain trade union elements, such as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition.
If the Labour Party is ever to govern again after it has lost the next election, some day and somehow it will have to face the monster that it has created.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fairgrieve: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber. If he had attended the debate, I would give way to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) had given way.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has been here for the whole debate, wanted to intervene.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman needs new glasses.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) give way?

Mr. Fairgrieve: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is determined to continue his short speech.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) entered the Chamber only two minutes ago.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Disgraceful.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I shall continue my speech without interference from part-time attenders.

Mr. Donald Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spent at least one and a half hours in the Chamber earlier.

Mr. Fairgrieve: All I can say is that that must have something to do with Scotch mist or the fact that they have


a different type of clock in the Western Isles. Unlike those from the islands, we do believe in the time-machine.
If I may conclude my short speech, I repeat that if the Labour Party is ever to govern again after it has lost the next election, I hope that it will support us if we run into this sort of situation or that it will decide how to deal with the monster that it has created. It is with some reluctance and sadness that my party and I will support the Government in this unfortunate legislation.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said in a sedentary intervention that he was not staying long in the Chamber. I call Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You must have misheard me. I said that I would not stay long to listen to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve). That was because he refused to give way to me. I still hope to catch your eye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: An hon. Member said earlier that the House wanted a speedy passage of the Bill. He will have to study the meaning of the word"speedy ". If I call the Opposition spokesman now, I shall call the Lord Advocate afterwards. I had better call the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, who has not heard the arguments. If he should repeat the arguments that have already been made, I shall have to accuse him of reiteration. I hope that he will try to keep his speech as brief as possible.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It had not been my intention to take part in the debate, in the interests of the speedy passage of the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has not been here during the debate.

Mr. Hughes: I understood that there was unanimity on the need to get the Bill through. Had the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) not been so provocative in his remarks, I should not have felt compelled to rise.
It is not good enough for Conservative Members simply to blame the Government for the present series of events. We are desperately looking to the Opposition for a statement about how they would deal with the position. We should be told specifically whether the Conservatives are in favour of the implementation of the work of the Pay Research Unit.

Mr. Younger: We have been discussing these matters all afternoon.

Mr. Hughes: There is no point in the Opposition condemning strikes, and those who are on strike, when Conservative Members will not tell us how they would deal with the matter.

Mr. Rifkind: I have been listening with fascination to the hon. Gentleman. He accuses the Opposition of not making various policy statements, but can he indicate on what basis he has concluded that such policy statements have not been made in the debate?

Mr. Hughes: We have been trying to get such statements from the Opposition for many months. I am as entitled as any other Member to ask what is the Opposition's policy before their spokesman winds up the debate. I am surprised if Tory Members think that that is undemocratic.
The Opposition will get nowhere by trying to avoid the questions. Are they in favour of the implementation of the PRU? If they are opposed to strikes in the courts, where else are they prepared to say that strikes should be illegal? What is it that makes them say that the democratic right of individuals—[Interruption.] Why are hon. Gentlemen opposite so upset at being asked to answer simple questions? Do they have something to hide?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The only thing that is upsetting the House is that we have been discussing this matter for some three and a half hours and the hon. Gentleman has not been here. If the Government put up Back Benchers to filibuster, they cannot expect to get their legislation today.

Mr. Hughes: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not been put up here by anybody to filibuster, nor is it my intention to do so. If Conservative Members are as anxious as we are to get the Bill through, it would be far better if they would allow me to make this brief speech without interruption.
Are the Conservatives saying that in this or any other area they are in favour of making strikes illegal? The fact that people are taking the attitude that in whatever circumstances they operate they will go on strike to get the best possible bargain is a reflection on the kind of information that has been coming from the Benches opposite. They are the people who have been talking about"free collective bargaining ", and if there is free collective bargaining people have the right to use what weapons they have and what influence they have to get the best possible bargain. I do not think that the Opposition should be absolved from responsibility for the damage that they did by removing from the Government the possibility of applying sanctions against firms and industry.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman say what sanctions he would apply to the Civil Service? Would he cancel its contracts?

Mr. Hughes: I certainly would not cancel any contracts, because we are in a different situation. Tory Members are saying that the Government should not try to bring any influence to bear on those concerned, but at the same time they want the Government to take direct action. It is curious that the Conservative Party is for ever telling the Labour Party, and certain sections of it in particular, that it is seeking to turn this country into some kind of central mid-European State behind the Iron Curtain. Those are the only countries that have the kind of control of the economic situation that is demanded by the Tory Benches. There is a contradiction there which they cannot and will not resolve.
It is my belief that the best way to proceed in this matter and on this strike is to get agreement as quickly as possible. The passage of the Bill will not by itself resolve the problem, but it will resolve other matters in the legal system which have to be resolved.
The provocative speeches of Conservative Members—[HON. MEMBERS:"No ".] I think that I have touched a raw nerve. They are upset because they have made these speeches time and time again. [HON. MEMBERS:"Withdraw ".] I shall not withdraw my remarks, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do have a raw nerve on this side of the House, bearing in mind that one of the most important fundamental Bills to come before the House of Commons has been discussed with one Labour Back Bencher present and one Labour Back Bencher speaking. I regard it as an affront to the people of Scotland that on such an important issue we are listening to this last-minute contribution by an hon. Member who walked into the Chamber only five minutes before he spoke.

Mr. Hughes: I thought that the hon. Gentleman did not want us to speak, so what is he complaining about? I am trying to get answers from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and no amount of dancing around and jumping and hopping from one foot to another will prevent the questions being asked, and they really ought to answer them.
I hope that when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) winds up the debate he will tell us specifically how he would deal with the situation, otherwise people will be certain that they are only up to mischief-making, and they will not be any the better regarded in Scotland for that.

6.55 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) with astonishment because it appears that he was addressing the Conservative Opposition as though they were the Government. Perhaps this is merely a sign of the times and opposition comes more naturally to the hon. Gentleman than government. I am bound to say, however, that if he had heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) speak he would have learnt that at that time there were virtually only five Scottish Labour Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, although there are 41


Scottish Labour Members of Parliament; and for most of this debate very few Labour Members have been present. I think that that is a matter for comment.
As the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) said, this is a United Kingdom dispute, and it is obviously a matter of supreme importance because it is vital to protect the rights and freedoms of every British citizen, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has said.
The Secretary of State stressed in his speech that the courts are a forum in which justice must be sought. Again and again today, throughout the debate, one point has been made by hon. Members—the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the hon. Member for Galloway, my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson)—in relation to clause 5, namely, whether the authorisation for the clause comes directly from the Secretary of State or whether these powers are being given to the judges so that they may use their discretion.
I accept what the Secretary of State has said, that the intention is not to have a strike-breaking or blacklegging clause, but I implore him to look very hard indeed at amendment No. 2, because it makes it absolutely clear that the decisions in this matter must come directly from him. It is highly desirable that that amendment should be passed so that there may be no doubt about this matter.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman has talked about clause 5 and amendment No. 2. The effect would be that before outsiders could be brought into the courts there would have to be a policy decision by the Secretary of State as distinct from individual sheriffs. Will the hon. Gentleman say a little about when the Conservative Party thinks that that option should be used? Is he in favour of using it at once?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely irresponsible, because he stated earlier that, in his view, many lawyers thought that employing volunteers at this stage was not desirable. I suggest to the hon. Member that many lawyers want the action to come from the Secretary of State, but

only when it is absolutely necessary. I am not suggesting for a moment that it is absolutely necessary now, but if this strike goes on indefinitely for up to six months the mood among the legal profession in Scotland may change. I think that all of us on both sides of the House hope that this strike will end.
The right hon. Member for the Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) stressed the seriousness of this matter and he in the last debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands in this debate made it quite clear that there is more sympathy for the nurses' claim and the restraint they have exercised than there is for the clerks.
The hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Aberdeen, North are so desperately anxious to discover what the Conservative Party policy is that I must tell them straight away that it would be wrong and misleading for us to try to outbid the Government in buying off the strike. We do not see that as our role at all, and my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr, for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) all said that strikes will continue for as long as the Government are willing, or anybody is willing, to pay to those striking the maximum they are asking for. That is a situation which we deplore. We believe very strongly that there should be speedy negotiation, and we certainly want the general situation reviewed.
In a number of categories of employment, strike action is against the national interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands has given the examples of the police and the Army. There is no question of our banning strikes under compulsion. We would seek to obtain the agreement of those in certain positions—for example, those who work in the courts—to surrender their right to strike in exchange for a system of wage payments which would ensure that they would not fall behind and which would be entirely satisfactory from their point of view. This can be done only by negotiation and agreement.
As for the Pay Research Unit, we strongly support the principle of its continuance, but it would be quite wrong for us to engage in a Dutch auction, in the course of a serious industrial dispute,


about the timing of the implementation of its report.
I have been asked a number of questions, and I wish to ask the Lord Advocate one question. In the last debate I passed on to the Government the offer made by Mr. Bonar, the secretary of the SCPS branch of the Court of Session. In the debate on 13 March, I mentioned that Mr. Bonar had explained that
 if a guarantee of meaningful negotiations on the Pay Research Unit report was made the national executive councils of the CPSA and SCPS would be called to consider the request of the Secretary of State to call the action off in the Scottish courts."—[Official Report, 13 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 334.]
What consideration has been given by the Government to this aspect? Will the Lord Advocate give the House a general progress report on the present position?
I wish to return more closely to the Bill itself. Clause 2 presumably deals with time-bar and prescription, areas of the law which are dealt with by the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. These prescriptive periods run from the moment when certain rights become enforceable. The word"enforceable"may cause trouble because, in the first week of the strike, no summonses were signeted and, therefore, no rights were enforceable at that time and they could not be enforced in the courts.
A question may arise later as to when any prescriptive period starts to run. Does it start when the courts are closed, or when the right could be enforced through the bringing of an action? The Law Society of Scotland has suggested that the time limit should be two months. The Law Society takes the same point as was made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East, namely, that there will be a tremendous backlog of cases. I hope that the Lord Advocate will let the House know what policy will be pursued on that point.
I must also ask the Lord Advocate about fiscal measures not covered by clause 2. Yesterday I was given a satisfactory answer by the Minister of State, Treasury, who I am glad to see is present. He said:
 The Board of Inland Revenue will be prepared to extend the time limit as necessary to cover cases where it is satisfied that the distribution could reasonably be expected to have been made by 31 March 1979 if the industrial

action had not taken place."—[Official Report, 19 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 446–7.]
Will that concession be extended to all other fiscal cases which may be similarly involved?
Furthermore, capital transfer tax is also causing problems. For example, if a shopkeeper dies and his will cannot be confirmed because the Commissary Office is on strike, it is important that that aspect should be covered. Under the present law CTT must be paid before confirmation is taken. This means that many people have to pay a large sum and cannot get the money because they are unable to sell the shop in question. Therefore, they have to take a vast loan and to pay a great deal of interest. I understand that the Treasury is taking a sympathetic view and is organising repayments. Will the Lord Advocate confirm that?
Clause 3 is a worrying clause. Its effect is that untried prisoners will be locked up on an indefinite basis as long as the strike continues. These powers are draconian, but unfortunately they are absolutely necessary. It is particularly worrying that the courts have no power to review the position.
How many persons in Scotland accused of serious crimes in the High Court are acquitted? Is the figure in the past 10 years 20, 30 or 40 per cent.? If the Lord Advocate examines the number of persons charged with murder, rape, incest or any other serious offence he will see that a considerable number have been released. If such people are to be kept indefinitely in prison without trial, it raises a difficult issue. The European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms states:
 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law ".
It continues:
 Everyone arrested or detained…shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.
That is impossible under the Bill. It seems that there is only a limited number of possibilities. One would be to let accused murderers go free on the streets—which would not be acceptable to any of us. Another would be to allow those


who are accused of serious crimes, if they so wished, to elect for trial before a judge sitting without a jury. An amendment has been tabled to that effect. The other possibility is that a person stays in prison for an indefinite period of time pending trial. It may also mean that people who may otherwise have been kept in prison before trial will be released on bail and that more people would be released on bail than would normally be the case. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will say how that clause will work in practice.
Why is there no mention in clause 4 of the Court of Session? Where a proof may be held during the emergency, an interlocutor will be pronounced allowing proof of trial, and in the practice in the Court of Session this interlocutor contains a warrant to cite witnesses.
Clause 5 relates to a most sensitive matter with which the Lord Advocate will have to deal, namely, whether he will agree to amendment No. 2. Even if there is only the faintest possibility of volunteers being required in the near future—indeed, there is a strong possibility of this happening in the next few weeks—it is important that the authorisation must come directly from the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns has already stressed the independence of the judiciary. This is a most valued principle and must not be undermined.
Clause 5(2) deals with copies of documents lodged in court. Does the phrase
 copy of any document lodged in court 
mean a copy of any document already lodged in court prior to the strike? After all, it seems that only such documents would be inaccessible. Does the clause envisage that the judge would decide at proof whether the document is admissible and that it would remain admissible subject to proof that it is not a true copy? For example, I refer to a case in which there is a dispute about a document not being genuine. In such a case, where does the onus of proof lie?
In regard to clause 5(3), why are the words"failure or omission"used? Why not"acting or omission "? Could some acting of a judge invalidate proceedings? Perhaps the Lord Advocate could give the House his view. If assistants are volunteers, will they be paid by the State?

If not, will they be protected from civil liability as a result of the consequences of volunteering? For example, if a volunteer who was not an expert were to lose a document, would he be liable under the civil law for damages?
One area of grave concern that is not covered is that of confirmation. The Law Society of Scotland has made representations on this point. I hope that the Lord Advocate will take these matters into account. The special committee set up by the Law Society states that it is
 aware of many instances where a widow is either suffering dire financial hardship or is being obliged to pay penal rates of overdraft interest because of the inability of her solicitor to obtain confirmation to her late husband's estate because of the present industrial action…From the point of view of the solicitor the present inability to obtain confirmation also brings to a standstill estate planning.
Many of these matters are highly technical, but where constituents are involved and make complaints it is worth considering how these clauses will operate in practice.
In regard to the Stamp Act, will the Lord Advocate say whether he considers a period of three months to be adequate? It may well be that it is too short. Do the provisions of clause 6, in line 37, mean that a deed has to be"duly stamped"with a nil penalty at the most if there is a good reason for delay? Is it the case that the clause does not deal with deeds requiring to be stamped but which will not be recorded? I hope that we shall discuss these matters in much greater detail in a moment.
This is a worrying Bill because in many respects it is the legal equivalent of martial law. If the strike continues for a prolonged period, it will be necessary to review this legislation. Rushed legislation is not always the best. I ask the Lord Advocate to review these matters in the light of experience in the coming weeks and months.

7.10 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear—and I think other hon. Members have taken the point—the object of the Bill is not to cure all ills created by the present stoppage in the courts. It is restricted, firstly, to preserving rights which would otherwise be irretrievably lost. Secondly,


the Bill is aimed at continuing some functions of the courts to deal with matters of special immediacy and to maintain continuity in the machinery of justice. In other words, it is a fort-holding operation.
I think it has been recognised by hon. Members who have taken part in the debate that the courts have a unique position as the universal place of recourse for redress of injustice and that that function must be given and allowed to be fulfilled.
I shall obviously not be able to reply to all the points raised, in the debate—[HON. MEMBERS:"Why not? "]—because it would take me a very long time. It may please hon. Members if I say that I shall pick out the main points that I think I can now answer off the cuff. I do not think that Opposition Members would want a hasty answer to some of the detailed points that have been raised. I do not want to bore hon. Members—even those opposite—and I hope, therefore, that some points that I do not answer will be picked up when we come to debate the clauses. I am sure that that is the appropriate way to deal with the matter.
I welcome what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) said about accepting that clause 5 is not intended to be a strikebreaking clause. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to take the view that this confers a power on judges to make the appointments to which the subsection refers. The point is that the authority conferred on judges is for them to exercise at their discretion. That meets the question about qualifications. It is clearly tendered as a power which the judges should have, but it is not a strike-breaking power. The responsibility for the employment of sheriff clerks and clerks of court, as my right hon. Friend made clear, remains with the Secretary of State. That is why a matter of policy in this connection must be a matter for him.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

The Lord Advocate: I shall not give way at this stage.

Mr. Fairbairn: It is on this point.

The Lord Advocate: Very well.

Mr. Fairbairn: As the Lord Advocate appreciates, I am a very simple person. I listened to the Secretary of State and to what the Lord Advocate has just said. As I recall, the Secretary of State said quite clearly—and I can be contradicted if I am wrong—that this power could not be exercised by the judges without the authority and decision of the Secretary of State. As I understood the Lord Advocate, he said that the judges can exercise this power at their discretion. In other words, the Secretary of State is saying that the judges can exercise the power only if he says"I tell you to"or"I permit you to ", and the Lord Advocate says that the judges can do it when they like. He invents the schizophrenic formula that they will use the discretion and the Secretary of State will use the policy. We must be clear what the Government mean.

The Lord Advocate: I regret giving way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because the matter is perfectly clear. [HON. MEMBERS:"It is not."] It is perfectly clear. The responsibility for policy decisions is that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and he made that absolutely clear. He said that he accepted that the responsibility of deciding whether extra personnel should be brought in to do the jobs of those who are not working was a policy decision which rested exclusively with him. It is not a matter for judges to decide.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Lord Advocate: No, I shall not give way. The matter is clear beyond a doubt. After all, we are dealing with a specific amendment which the Opposition have tabled. There seems to me to be very little purpose in dealing now with the substance and merit of an amendment which is tabled relating specifically to this point—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify one matter?

The Lord Advocate: If this is to be a brief intervention I shall give way.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Prior to the Secretary of State giving a policy direction to the judges, what happens if a judge appoints somebody to help him in the interim period?

The Lord Advocate: That is a power that the Bill clearly confers, and if a judge cares to use it he can do so.
Let me repeat what I have said, absolutely clearly and without any ambiguity. The responsibility for making any decision of policy rests firmly with the Secretary of State, and he said that. The last word that I can say on the matter at this stage is that it would be wrong for the Government to impose on judges responsibility for a matter of policy which must be the Government's responsibility.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: rose—

The Lord Advocate: I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose if I gave way again. I have many specific matters to answer, and I think that I should try to deal with some of them.
I am not for one moment suggesting that the points that have been put to the Government should not be answered this evening. They certainly will be. I am merely saying that if I attempt to answer all the points I shall be on my feet continuously and we shall have virtually a Committee stage. So far I have attempted to deal only with one point which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West in his closing remarks.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We have been very co-operative on the Bill. We simply want to know the position. The fact is that clause 5, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, confers the right on judges to appoint people. On the other hand, he said that the Secretary of State is reserving the right, the political decision, as to when it should start. We must know exactly what the answer is. Is he saying that the Government's policy is that clause 5 should not be operated until the Secretary of State gives the starting orders, but that, on the other hand, the clause confers on judges the right to do so? Does he intend to put a commencement order on it? Does he intend to accept our amendment? We must know whether the Government are proposing a clause which they do not want to be operated until the Secretary of State gives the go-ahead.

The Lord Advocate: I think that the hon. Gentleman has clarified the matter to some extent. Certainly the Government's position—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It takes the Opposition to do that.

The Lord Advocate: Then I withdraw that, because, quite frankly, I do not think that these interventions help to clarify the matter at all. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was saying at the end of his intervention that this matter was the subject of a specific amendment. I entirely agree with him. It seems to me that the effect of his intervention was simply to prove that this matter would best be left until we deal with the specific amendment.
Let me repeat what I have said, because to this extent I think that the hon. Member for Cathcart clarified the position. The Government's view is that the appointment of personnel to carry out the work of those at present withdrawing their labour should not be started until a policy decision has been made. That is the Government's position.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Bill does not say that.

The Lord Advocate: Of course it does not say that, because an Act of Parliament does not say what a Government's policy is. Acts of Parliament are legislative powers conferred on people in certain circumstances. For example, nothing needs to be said in an emergency Bill of this kind about ministerial powers.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

The Lord Advocate: I shall not give way any further on this point.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

The Lord Advocate: I am not prepared to give way on this point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Lord Advocate has made it abundantly clear that he is not prepared to give way.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will respect the indications of the Chair. When an hon. Member who is addressing the House does not give way, that is an end to it.

Mr. Skinner: That has put him in his place.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West raised a number of other points. The next point that I can properly take up is the time limit of one month which is mentioned in clause 1. clause 1. Perhaps the clearest way to deal with this is to point out that the time limit of one month, which first appears in clause 1(1), is related to the time which is covered by the emergency period.
The provision at the beginning of clause 1(1) states:
 This Act shall cease to be in force one month after the date prescribed by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument ".
Therefore, in regard to what one might call problems of re-entry—getting back to normal after the emergency period after the strike has been settled and so on—the extent of time covered by this is a matter for the Secretary of State to take into account in the statutory instrument which he will issue in due course.
For example, the strike could end in a week's time, but it may be that the points which the hon. Gentleman had in mind would require the Secretary of State to consider a delay of one month before putting forward a statutory instrument. That would require a further period of one month before the Bill itself would lapse. Therefore, the flexibility which the hon. Gentleman thought was desirable is built into clause 1(1).
The hon. Gentleman then asked about the fiscal concession about which the Minister of State had told him in reply to a written question. In particular, he asked whether the concession made in regard to the transitional relief time limit would be extended to other fiscal time limits. I understand that the answer is, in general,"Yes"in cases where there are court proceedings and where court proceedings have led to prejudice by virtue of the strike of court personnel; in other words, where there are relevant court proceedings and where there has been some prejudice due to delay.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will this concession be considered also for those whose relatives are unfortunate enough to die, who have to pay capital transfer tax but who cannot realise the property because they cannot get it confirmed and therefore cannot sell it and raise the money?

The Lord Advocate: I think that capital transfer tax is a different matter. The hon. Gentleman specifically asked for repayments of capital transfer tax to people who are unable to get confirmation. That was what he put to me. My information is that Inland Revenue will be issuing a press notice dealing with certain points on capital transfer tax, including the point that the hon. Gentleman has just put to me.
The hon. Gentleman said that people would be locked up for considerable periods under the provisions of clause 3. That is perfectly true. He asked for the statistics of persons in Scotland who were acquitted. I am afraid that I cannot give them off the cuff, and perhaps that is another matter which could be dealt with when we consider clause 3.
Clearly, if the strike were to go on for a long period the specific problems that the hon. Gentleman put to me would require to be solved. They are very difficult and acute, and I appreciate that the Conservative Opposition have an alternative solution which they have put forward by way of amendment. The problems, certainly in the short term, are not as difficult as the hon. Gentleman made out. It is a matter of very grave regret, certainly on the Government's part, that anyone has to be kept in custody for a period longer than 110 days during the present emergency.
However, it is only right to have a sense of proportion and to realise that we in Scotland are fortunate in having such a stringent time limit. There are many other countries, including England, where this period of time would be quite acceptable and where no one would think very much about someone being kept in custody, even on serious charges, for a period very much longer than 110 days. We must have a sense of proportion about this.
Provided that the strike does not continue for a protracted period, I believe that, in regard to the amount of prejudice, although very real and unfortunate for those who at the end of the day may be acquitted, it would be exaggerating matters to maintain that it was something that would not be accepted on a European scale, especially since we have a much more stringent time limit than many of our European companion States.
I should like to try to deal briefly with some of the other matters that were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was right to draw attention to the fact that there appeared to be some contradiction between what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) and what I had certainly understood official Opposition policy to be in relation to industrial disputes and strikes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has perhaps helped to correct the possibly misleading impression that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave in that regard. Indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr Rifkind) presented the Opposition view in a rather different light. It is difficult to avoid the inference that the hon. and learned Gentleman was seeking to make out that all strikes were illegal because they were the activities of highwaymen, that all combinations of persons to withdraw their labour are criminal conspiracies—

Mr. Fairbairn: Oh, no!

The Lord Advocate: —these are indeed legal points—and that trade unions must really be unlawful.

Mr. Fairbairn: indicated dissent.

The Lord Advocate: Well, I heard what I heard. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imply that trade unions are unlawful because in some sense they are an expression of collective rather than individual opinion. If that is not what he meant, I am happy to accept that, but the contradiction was certainly apparent to some of us. If that is not what he intended to imply, I am happy to accept that and to pass on to some of the other points.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked me a question on judges, which I think I have dealt with. In any event, I would rather leave that until we consider the matter in much more detail when we come to the relevant clause. He asked about information in regard to an earlier clause—I think it was clause 4(2). I can reassure him on that matter. There is an Opposition amendment dealing with this matter—No. 10—to which the Government are sympathetic. Nevertheless, we are here dealing with a rather technical aspect of procedure, and it reflects the

fact that normally when, for example, summary diets are fixed, arrangements are made by the prosecutor with the court. It is when the diet is obtained that intimation is made to the accused. Therefore, there is really no prejudice to an accused person.
One is really trying to organise court business in a rational way, and at that stage there would be very little point in intimating to an accused person that he might or might not be tried on a certain day. What he really wants to know is what day has been provisionally fixed for him to appear in court. Therefore, the question of information is perhaps not the one which the right hon. Gentleman thought he was dealing with in relation to this clause.
The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about the payment of fines. I think that one of the sheriff courts in his constituency—Shetland—is sitting normally and therefore there is no problem in regard to payment of fines. But the courts are not operating normally in Orkney. I believe that the practice which is followed in other courts is being operated there, which is that when fines are imposed the time for payment is put well ahead, in the hope that it will be entirely clear of the present industrial action.
The other point with which the Government have a lot of sympathy—it was one of the right hon. Gentleman's observations—is that here we are dealing with emergency legislation. Other hon. Members have expressed the same view. It has been correctly stated that the supreme courts of Scotland have not been closed in this fashion since 1532 when they were reorganised in the form of the Court of Session. That is a matter of great regret. But at the same time it must be recognised that there can be no justice without the courts. There can be no way of enforcing one's rights, or remedying injustice, unless some minimum relic of machinery of justice is there. That is the other side of the coin.
It is a matter of great regret, and one that I deplore very strongly, that at the moment the Scottish courts are virtually at a standstill. On the other hand, the seriousness of that state of affairs surely justifies an unusual provision such as the present emergency Bill. It is calculated to meet an emergency. In that regard it


is a modest measure, because, as was pointed out, it cannot put the courts back into full action or anything like it.
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) asked for reassurance about major criminals. I can reassure him that there is no question of anyone not being charged with a major crime during the present crisis. Indeed, the only change in procedure in this regard is that when the police charge or arrest someone who commits a crime which perhaps justifies imprisonment or custody, they are giving consideration to releasing such persons and reporting them to the procurator fiscal for citation, which preserves the right to bring a charge at a later date but which at the same time does not involve the problem of having such persons in custody. Arrests are taking place. Certainly fewer people are being detained in custody than there normally would be. I can give the assurance that there is no question of major criminals not being arrested. There is no question of their not being brought to trial.

Mr. Thompson: Will the Lord Advocate deal with minor crimes? Is it true that minor criminals are not being dealt with by arrest when, in normal circumstances, the police might arrest them?

The Lord Advocate: That is difficult to answer in the abstract, but obviously one does not seek to arrest and detain people if that can be avoided. Fewer people involved in minor crimes will be detained. I think that the distinction between arrest and detention is important, because one might arrest someone for a minor breach of the peace. He would be taken to the police station and charged. Details would be taken and he would perhaps be warned that he would be cited, and in time he would be. The question of arrest is different from that of custody. We are trying to minimise the number of people kept in custody pending trial.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: What does the Lord Advocate regard as minor and major offences? For what kind of crime will a person now go free rather than be kept in custody? Has the Lord Advocate given some direction to the police as to what class of criminal might be allowed to go free?

The Lord Advocate: It would be unwise for me to attempt to distinguish between

major and minor crimes. I cannot go beyond what I said in the debate last week, when I pointed out that dealing with certain offences has been abandoned altogether. These are minor traffic offences. They are typical of the minor cases and are, perhaps, not worth pursuing. Above that level, there is a range of traffic cases which, while undoubtedly minor, should not be abandoned. They are, however, the cases to which one does not give the same priority as to common law offences such as housebreaking or assault. Beyond that broad generalisation, one must try to pursue what is thought by most people to be criminal activity. It is difficult to regard road traffic statutory offences as major crimes.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said that he welcomed the Bill, and I am glad of that. He emphasised that this is a serious situation. He appreciated that, deplorable though it might be, the situation merits the kind of limited emergency action that we are taking in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked many questions which I feel duty bound to try to answer because I failed to answer them on the last occasion. The Bill makes it clear that it deals only with the points that I mentioned earlier. It deals with the two vital steps which preserve rights which otherwise might be lost irretrievably—the continuation of the function of the courts in dealing with matters of special immediacy and the maintenance of the machinery and continuity of justice. It is a modest Bill, and that is all that it claims to do.
It would be wrong for me to attempt to spell out more fully at this stage what the various clauses mean. We shall deal with them in amendments. It would be wrong to suggest that the Bill is any kind of panacea for the emergency in the Scottish courts.
The hon. Member mentioned civil actions for damages provided for in clause 2. I believe that he wanted me to define the kind of civil case that the Government had in mind. The kind of case that we have in mind is that of an action for damages for personal injuries where the triennial limitation means that if an action is not started within three years from the date of the wrong complained of, the right of action is lost. The effect of clause 2 is to stop that limitation. In other words,


if shortly after the start of the strike on 23 February—let us say 26 February—it was the end of a three-year period for someone who had not yet brought an action to court, clause 2, because it is retrospective, would enable that action to be started despite the fact that two years had elapsed. Perhaps that is the kind of illustration the hon. Member sought.
The hon. Gentleman asked me today, and last week, about motor vehicle licences. I am informed that there is no legal impediment to drivers who do not have their licences because they are in the court and are not returned to them because of the present industrial action. Such drivers are not prevented from driving. I assume from the way that the question was put to me that this concerns cases where licences have been sent to the court and there has been no further procedure.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the strain on prisons. I believe that he was referring to the 110-day custody period. This is a matter of importance, but all I can say at present is that the Government have it in mind. No doubt this matter can be canvassed later.
I turn to the question of football hooliganism. In Glasgow it is the practice to take football hooliganism cases in the sheriff courts. This is done to bring home to offenders the seriousness of their crime and to ensure that the sentence received is suitable. It is done so that the courts can impose high sentences for bad cases of hooliganism, penalties which could not be imposed by the district courts when lay justices are trying such cases.
In this crisis it will be possible for the district courts to deal with football hooliganism. In Glasgow, for example, stipendiary magistrates have the same sentencing powers as the sheriff. Football hooliganism cases in Glasgow can be dealt with by the stipendiary in an appropriate way. For the rest, I can say only that in the meantime the matter will have to be dealt with by the district courts which are still sitting. I am sure that I have not answered all the questions put to me.

Mr. Rifkind: I wish to ask the Lord Advocate about a question which he has not answered and which cannot properly

be raised in Committee. He will be aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House have pressed him to clarify, on behalf of the Government, the problem created by the comment of the Secretary of State last week that any settlement that is reached after 1 April will be retrospective to 1 April. There have been requests from both sides of the House for this matter to be clarified. Will the Lord Advocate please state the Government's considered view on this?

The Lord Advocate: I do not propose to answer that any further than it has already been answered. [HON. MEMBERS:"It has not been answered."] My right hon. Friend has already dealt with this. Hon. Members may not like the way in which he dealt with it, but he has dealt with it.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

The Lord Advocate: No, I shall not give way. The Floor of the House is not the place to conduct industrial negotiations. It has been made perfectly clear by my right hon. Friend—indeed, it was made clear in the debate last week—that these are delicate matters which are under negotiation. The Lord Privy Seal met the unions today to deal with this matter, and questions were asked of the Prime Minister during Question Time today. It would be wrong for me to attempt to add further to the replies which have been given already. This is not my responsibility. The responsibility lies with the Lord Privy Seal. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated today that the questions put to him would be referred to the Lord Privy Seal. That is as far as I propose to go at present.

Mr. Fairbairn: I refer the Lord Advocate to the passage in question so that we are not in doubt. The Secretary of State for Scotland said:
 In any case, it is the intention of the Government to reach a settlement before 1 April.… I can confirm what I have just said. I do not think it is a particularly useful function to carry on negotiations on the Floor of the House. In any case, one is dealing with a hypothetical situation, because it is certainly the intention of the Government that a settlement will be reached before 1 April. In my view, however, if the negotiations go beyond 1 April, there is not reason why the settlement should not be back-dated to 1 April. That is a matter for negotiation."—[Official Report, 13 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 289.]
Is that the Government's view?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been helpful because he has made clear that what my right hon. Friend said is free from doubt. He may not like what my right hon. Friend said, but there can be no doubt about the clarity of it.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that it is

Question accordingly agreed to.

important that nothing is said in the House that will imperil a reasonable and sensible conclusion to the industrial dispute.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 20.

Division No. 101]
AYES
[7.44 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Goodhew, Victor
Reid, George


Arnold, Tom
Gould, Bryan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gourlay, Harry
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Graham, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grist, Ian
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Boardman, H.
Hardy, Peter
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roper, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Henderson, Douglas
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brotherton, Michael
Hooley, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Horam, John
Sever, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Silverman, Julius


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Snape, Peter


Campbell, lan
Hunter, Adam
Spriggs, Leslie


Carlisle, Mark
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Sproat, lain


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Stallard, A. W.


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Conlan, Bernard
Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
John, Brynmor
Stoddart, David


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Stott, Roger


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kilfedder, James
Strang, Gavin


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crawford, Douglas
Knight, Mrs Jill
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lambie, David
Thompson, George


Crouch, David
Lawson, Nigel
Tinn, James


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tomlinson, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Torney, Tom


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
McCartney, Hugh
Waddington, David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
MacCormick, lain
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Deakins, Eric
McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McKay, Alan (Penistone)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dempsey, James
Maclennan, Robert
Wall, Patrick


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ward, Michael


Doig, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Watkins, David


Dormand, J. D.
Mather, Carol
Watt, Hamish


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Welsh, Andrew


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunlop, John
Moate, Roger
White, James (Pollok)


Dunn, James A.
Molloy, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Molyneaux, James
Whitlock, William


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Monro, Hector
Whitney, Raymond


Evans, John (Newton)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Noble, Mike
Woodall, Alec


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Oakes, Gordon
Young, David (Bolton E)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Younger, Hon George


Ford, Ben
Park, George



Forrester, John
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Penhaligon, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Mr. Alf Bates.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Lamond, James
Richardson, Miss Jo


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Lee, John
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bidwell, Sydney
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Madden, Max
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Cryer, Bob
Maynard, Miss Joan



Flannery, Martin
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ovenden, John
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. John Evans.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair.]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2

EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITS, & C.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 17, leave out
' one month after the expiry of the emergency period '
and insert
' such period after the expiry of the emergency period which is equivalent to the length of the emergency period '.
The purpose of clause 2 in its present form is to ensure that those members of the public who have seen the expiry of the triennium or any time-barred procedure because of this strike should have the provisions restored to them. One would wish to welcome clause 2 for that reason. It is nevertheless my suggestion that the clause in its present form is not wholly satisfactory. The desire should be to ensure that no member of the public loses any right that would otherwise be available to him as a consequence of this industrial action.
Under the clause as drafted, once the emergency period has been completed, there will be a maximum of one month during which time members of the public or potential pursuers may initiate legal action or other action not open to them during the emergency period. The period of one month is a fixed period. It does not relate to the length of time this strike, at the end of the day, is seen to last, whether two or three weeks, two or three months, or longer. The period of one month in this clause is inflexible. I accept that for those potential pursuers whose limitation on the right to bring an action had less than a month to run when this emergency period began will in no way be prejudiced by the clause in its present form.
I suggest that a different situation can easily arise if this strike extends to two or

three months. Let us assume that the strike continues for the full three months that certain of the civil servants are threatening. Let us assume that a particular potential pursuer sees the expiry of the triennium a couple of days before the end of that three-month period. In other words, during the whole of the three months strike his right to initiate action will have been effectively prevented. He will have lost three months of the three years provided by Parliament. Yet in the terms of clause 2, in its present form, he will have only a month thereafter to remedy the problems that have arisen as a result of the industrial action.
That seems unfair. If this Bill has the purpose of remedying defects caused as a result of this strike, the least we should expect is that members of the public should have the same minimum time as was originally provided by Parliament. In the case of the triennium, for example, where Parliament has laid down that a person should initiate an action within three years of the cause of that action becoming apparent, the total length of time available to that person should remain three years. In my submission, the period after the expiry of the emergency period should be at least equivalent to the length of the emergency period itself.
I appreciate that the Minister or the Lord Advocate may suggest that if this amendment was accepted the effect would be that in certain circumstances members of the public would end up having longer than three years in which to initiate an action. If a person's full period, despite having lost only two or days after the beginning of the emergency period, despite having only lost two or three days in which to initiate an action, that person would be given a much longer period relating to the length of the emergency period. That is a justifiable complaint. It is one that may be made against the clause in its present form and against the amendment.
8.0 p.m.
The clause in its present form allows a maximum of one month—indeed, a minimum of one month—irrespective of how short a period into the emergency period the expiry of the triennium takes place.
I suggest that the general objective should be to ensure that members of the public do not suffer any more than is necessary as a result of the industrial


dispute. It seems reasonable to suggest that the period after the end of the emergency period in which action may be initiated or other action taken should be exactly equivalent to the length of the emergency. The implementation of that suggestion would be fair to the public and easy to operate. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider it in a favourable light.

Mr. Millan: The amendment is concerned with a matter of judgment. I have considered the issue carefully and I believe that one month is reasonable. The emergency period will not necessarily end on the day that the courts return to work. I do not expect it to end on the first day that the courts return to work. If there has been dislocation, it will take time for the courts to return to normal working. I do not wish to speculate how long that will take. Obviously it will depend to a considerable extent on the length of the dispute.
If the courts were to return to work rapidly following the Bill's Royal Assent, obviously the period of dislocation would have been too long but a good deal shorter than some of us, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), fear. Therefore, the process of adjustment will take that much less time. If the strike were to continue and the courts were to be dislocated for a good deal longer, adjustment would take longer.
In fixing the emergency period, I shall take account of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. For obvious reasons, I do not wish to speculate. It would be hypothetical to do so. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall leave a reasonable time for the courts to return to normality. When the courts have returned to that state, the month will run from that time. There will be a minimum of one month.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to the Secretary of State for his response. I do not know what the volume of business will be of actions or criminal prosecutions that have to be initiated during the month. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee an assurance that those who have withdrawn their services to the cause of justice will not be able to claim extra funds for clearing

up a mass of work for which they are responsible?

Mr. Millan: I hope that that will not be the position. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) may be aware that there are one or two other disputes in Scotland either current or recently settled. I have taken the view that, while in some circumstances those who return to work after a dispute necessarily work overtime and are paid for that work—I think especially of local authority workers—there can be no question of uncovenanted bonuses being paid to employees to clear up messes for which they are responsible. I have taken that view in a number of instances within my direct responsibility. I do not think that I can answer the hon. and learned Gentleman any more fairly than that. I do not like dealing with the hypothetical. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows my general view.
We are talking about an adjustable period. I shall try to adjust it to meet the circumstances of the time in fairness to everybody. The time limits will apply to not only pursuers but defenders. The Committee will appreciate that if the time limits are extended defenders may use the extensions to frustrate or defer action. That could in itself be an injustice.
It is difficult to achieve the right balance. These matters have been considered carefully. I do not say that one month is bound to be absolutely right, but there is a certain amount of flexibility as the clause stands. I hope that on the assurance that I have given on how I shall operate the clause the hon. Member for Pentlands will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his helpful reply. I am glad to hear that the extension of the triennium will not be one month after the end of the emergency period but such part of the emergency period during which the courts are presumed to be functioning. That will ensure that the period is not restricted to one month and will be significantly greater. In those circumstances, I am only too happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry to interrupt for a second time the Committee's progress on clause 2. I ask the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State what will happen if a potential pursuer's triennum has expired during the emergency period and the potential pursuer has died during that period.
Normally, as the Lord Advocate will know, if a pursuer initiates an action and dies his representatives are able to continue the action. It may be that but for the emergency period and the closure of the courts a potential pursuer, who might have been near to death, would have initiated action. I have in mind a case that has been brought to my attention. If because of the emergency period the action had not been initiated and the potential pursuer had died, it would not, on the face of the provisons in the clause, be possible for his representatives to raise a new action on behalf of the deceased.
I ask the Government to indicate whether that is a real problem. It is one that has been put to me by solicitors in Scotland. If it is a real problem, how is it accommodated within the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Fairbairan: There is a matter of supreme importance that I raise briefly at this stage. It affects other clauses and it will be helpful if the Government make the position clear.
As the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate and the Committee will know, threats have been made—not merely verbal threats but written threats—that if certain action is taken by certain people in the intervening period certain processes will be blacked. I have in mind, for example, a solicitor who has signeted a summons. That may apply in a large number of cases, civil or criminal.
What happens if an employee, backed no doubt as he would be by the threat that if action is taken against him action will be taken by all, takes action which defeats the defence of the rights that we are trying to defend, and thus makes it impossible for the action to be raised, the prosecution to be taken or the trial to be heard within the equitable period that the Secretary of State has set?
The Government should make some response to that. I do not want to say anything that will irritate, but it is important that the Government respond. Let us remember that in the Bill every right that we try to preserve exacerbates another right. The preservation of the right of the person who is the pursuer in the civil cause is in conflict with the right of the person who is the defender. A person has a right to say when three years are over that no action has been raised and that he is free. That person suffers greatly from the prescription of time in terms of the memory of witnesses. In saving one right we are inevitably compromising another. It will be helpful if the Government clarify whether the action of someone who returns to work may prevent the preservation of the rights that we are trying to preserve.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has raised two important issues. I shall reply to the latter issue first, namely, the protection of rights.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to say that in preserving a right of action for a pursuer we are perhaps inevitably creating potential prejudice for a defender. If we look at the picture broadly we see that the defender will be acquiring certain advantages, as in certain cases he will not require to defend an action as quickly as he might have done. There is a counterpart for this. It would not be right to suggest that this is a unilateral advantage to pursuers. It is of advantage and a disadvantage to both sides. That point is clearly important.
I hope that the kind of action mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman will not take place. I hope that there will be no question of blacking. However, the Secretary of State will have this matter very much in mind, in exercising his powers under clause 1, in deciding when the period of emergency shall come to an end. It is not necessary to go beyond that tonight.
I hope that I have made the position clear. The Government would take a serious view of and gravely deplore any action of the kind indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) put a specific question about the problem of the limitation


on action when someone dies. I inquired into this point. I am reasonably satisfied that the clause as drafted does not give rise to this difficulty. The problem is not a real one, as any successor in the right of action which the deceased will have had—his executor or dependant—would have the benefit of the additional time during the emergency period and the month thereafter. The hon. Gentleman will notice that the wording of clause 2 is not confined to the actual pursuer. The emphasis is on the action itself.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3

PERIOD OF DETENTION OF UNCONVICTED PRISONERS

Mr. Fairbairn: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 3, at end add—
' (2) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (1) above, it shall be competent during the period of the emergency for an accused person detained in custody to whom subsection (1) applies, to intimate to the relevant court that he elects to be tried on indictment by a judge or sheriff sitting alone without a jury and such trial shall be held so soon as is practicable after such intimation.
' (3) In the event of such trial, the presiding judge or sheriff, before pronouncing his verdict shall be required to review the evidence, to make findings in fact and findings in law, and to give reasons for his verdict.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 3, at end add—
' (2) An accused person who is subsequently convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment shall have deducted from such term of imprisonment any period of his detention which exceeded 110 days which occurred during the emergency period and which was in connection with the charge or charges of which he was subsequently convicted '.

Mr. Fairbairn: In trying to preserve one right, one is compromising another. The rights that are in conflict come under clause 3. The untried person, whatever his record is in law and whatever the charge against him, is in law presumed to be innocent. We are suspending the Scottish equivalent of habeas corpus. Though I would not wish to be pessimistic—I am naturally sceptical—I trust that the

emergency period will not last for three months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said, that kind of period was mentioned as the time scale to which the Secretary of State should pay attention. I have heard the period of six months mentioned as one that could be funded if a will were not granted.
8.15 p.m.
We know that the Lord Advocate took petitions to the High Court of Justiciary which were granted on 21 February in 39 cases. We should all be greatly concerned about 39 individual freedoms. Indeed, I hope that we are greatly concerned about one individual freedom. Let us look at those gentlemen. The Lord Advocate may be able to say that 30 of them might get out or that nine of them might be released. In that case, there is a public interest. Let us suppose that a strike lasted for three months. I do not know in which prison they would have been imprisoned after committal. Presumably it would be for periods of up to 90 days. We may add to that period the three months and the Secretary of State's nobile officium. He has taken it to himself to say that the emergency shall not end for equitable, political or other reasons for a further two months. If we come to that point, some people may have been in detention for a long period but subsequently acquitted—and were innocent in any event. That matter should concern the conscience of us all.
It is for that reason that we have put down the amendment so that a person should be able in the emergency period to say"I know that I cannot be tried by jury because the mechanics of the clerk citing jurors is not possible ". He could be tried in some courts—I hope in the High Court—as some servants have put duty before the crowd spirit. It might be possible to arrange such trials. I should have thought that it was entirely equitable for a person to say"I am innocent; I do not wish to be detained indefinitely because of my previous record or because of the severity of the charge against me. I wish to conclude the proceedings by opting to be tried by a judge sitting alone without a jury."
I do not wish to be understood as suggesting that we should suspend jury trials. We are not suspending such trials. During


the suspension of jury trials we are giving people the civil right to be tried rather than to be detained without trial, and without limit of time. It would be equitable if such a person were allowed to say to the relevant courts"I elect to be tried, when it can be arranged, by a judge sitting alone."
We have made an addition to our amendment, as a result of reflection. I pay tribute to the assistance received in this matter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers). We have added a safeguard. If my proposal were agreed to, and the judge said at the end"I find you guilty ", it would be almost impossible, despite the notes of evidence, to mount an appeal The Lord Advocate will understand this. There are many circumstances in which the ground of appeal might not be capable of formulation unless we knew the basis upon which the judge approached his verdict. In other words, if in his mind he said"I disbelieve all the witnesses but I detest the accused ", and merely found him guilty, it would not be possible to formulate a relevant ground of appeal because there would have been sufficient evidence in the notes on which to convict him. But one would not know whether the judge disregarded the evidence but nevertheless found the man guilty, or disregarded some evidence that was essential for corroboration, or disbelieved some of it.
The amendment therefore goes on to say:
 In the event of such trial, the presiding judge or sheriff "—
because this applies to all the courts—
 before pronouncing his verdict shall be required to review the evidence "—
as he would to a jury—
 to make findings in fact and in law "—
that is the basis upon which our summary appeals work—
 and to give reasons for his verdict ".
That is the nearest to an equitable basis that I was able to get.
I sincerely hope that the Government will be willing to grant that right, which is in the interests of equity, and I hope that it will appeal also to those who, rightly and firmly, worry consistently about the civil rights of the individual. Detention without trial is inevitably necessary, even on a presumption of innocence. It is not pleasant, and I do not wish it

to be undertaken without limit of time and without the opportunity for a person to say"I elect to be tried without a jury, because I am innocent, and I prefer that to detention."

Mr. Robin F. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a very tempting case, and we are all very much aware of the problems which have arisen. But let us consider the case of the innocent person who, knowing that he is innocent, elects to be tried in accordance with the provision made in the amendment and who is subsequently, for whatever reason, found guilty. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that in those circumstances that person, to whom the amendment has given this right to elect to be tried without a jury, is likely to have any gratitude to us for making the suggested provision? Surely that person is likely to spend his sentence in prison repining the fact that we gave him this right and that he ill-advisedly chose to exercise it.

Mr. Fairbairn: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) made a similar point in the Supply day debate, and I think that he misses many of the relevant factors. I am quite sure that a very large number of people who were guilty of the crimes they committed have deeply regretted, when they were subsequently convicted, that they entrusted their fortunes to my hands. No doubt they have reflected upon little else during the time in which they have been incarcerated in one of Her Majesty's prisons.
In life, whenever we have a choice, we do not know what the effect of it will be, or what would have happened if we had made our choice in another way. If we turn right we may drive into a bus. We do not know what would have happened if we had taken an alternative route. In every step of the law there are, for an accused person, some very difficult choices to be made. Here we are seeking to enlarge his choice. We are trying to prevent his detention. The question that he will have to ask himself, under this provision, is"Shall I risk wrong conviction by one judge, or even right conviction by one judge, or shall I risk indeterminate detention in anticipation of eventual right or wrong conviction by a jury?" That is the choice, and I do not think that that choice should be denied


to him. I do not think that a great many people would elect to make that choice, but if only one elects to make it we shall have safeguarded one person from wrongful and indeterminate detention in anticipation, if he is convicted, of his sentence. He will be sitting in Barlinnie, Peterhead or Porterfield, or wherever it might be, for that period anyway, even if he is eventually convicted by a jury after the emergency is over. We are enabling him to start his sentence sooner. Let us be clear, therefore, that it is a bargain for the guilty, just as it is for the innocent.
Amendment No. 7 proposes that
 An accused person who is subsequently convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment should have deducted from such term of imprisonment any period of his detention which exceeded 110 days which occurred during the emergency period and which was in connection with the charge or charges of which he was subsequently convicted ".
A period in detention served by a person subsequently acquitted cannot be undone, but under amendment No. 5 that person has the right to prevent it. I accept and appreciate what the Lord Advocate said. In Scotland we have short periods of detention before trial compared with—dare I say it?—England. It is not a different nation, as was said by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), whose terminological in-exactitude is schizoid, but there is within our nation a separate system of law. Within the nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, although those of us in the legal profession should profess judicial ignorance, I understand that there are longer periods of detention before trial on serious matters in other parts of the United Kingdom that are not Scotland.
I accept that we have that system and we are proud of it. I do not wish to be dragged by these matters into a lower place in the league. I wish Scotland to remain at the top of that league. It would therefore be equitable to say that this period should automatically be deducted from any sentence.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendments.

Mr. Grimond: Amendment No. 7 is unexceptionable and I think that the Government could accept that right away.
I also support amendment No. 5. As has been emphasised, it does not compel a prisoner to be tried by a judge alone; it gives him the option to do so if he wishes.
This is a most important clause. Under it someone may be kept indefinitely in custody, depending on the length of the emergency.
Subject to the Lord Advocate's arguments, I am impressed by these amendments. If the emergency lasts a long time and someone is kept in custody for more than 110 days, will he have a right of appeal? There might be compassionate or other circumstances which might be grounds for a review of a person's case. It would be reasonable for that person to have some opportunity for appeal, but perhaps that is covered by an existing statute of which I am unaware.

Mr. Thompson: In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), I consider that there is a British State under which live the Scottish, English, Welsh and part of an Irish nation. The Germans have a perfect distinction between a nationality and staatsangehörigkeit. I shall continue to inscribe myself as"Scots"in hotel registers that demand to know my nationality.
I hope that we shall be faced with only a short emergency. I do not agree with those who are beginning to speculate that months and months may be the likely duration. I take the point of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire about the right of an accused to trial and his special point about the innocent. An argument cannot be based simply on the fact that other legal systems take an unconscionably longer time to deal with cases. From my time in Italy, I remember that there were people who waited years and years before the courts dealt with them. We must endeavour to maintain the Scottish system.
The first amendment is a radical departure from our present procedure, and we should therefore hesitate greatly before committing ourselves.

Mr. Fairbairn: Before the hon. Member gets too worked up about radicality—if that is the proper word; and I know that it will be difficult for him to comprehend that anything done in England is


anything but venomous—may I say that—on many matters people can elect whether they wish to be tried by a judge or jury in England?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Thompson: I am afraid that my knowledge of the English legal system is considerably less than my knowledge of the Scottish legal system, and as a mere schoolteacher I do not claim to have a vast grasp of the Scottish system. I have learnt quite a lot in my period as a Member of the House, much of it from the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire. I put on record my gratitude to him.
Have we ever had such courts in Scotland at any time, and, if we have, what was the record of the sort of justice administered in those courts? I also ask the Lord Advocate what would be the effect on possible appeals as between cases dealt with by this radically new procedure and cases dealt with under our present well-tried system. Would there be a prejudice created in favour of an appeal by someone who was convicted under the procedure suggested in amendment No. 5? We must not create a category of convicted persons who would then have to their advantage on appeal the possibility that they could say that they were less properly dealt with under the amendment No. 5 procedure than under the present system.
After I heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, I could understand why there was this need for the judge to give reasons for his verdict under amendment No. 5. Juries are never required to give reasons for their verdicts, but if we consider what the judge said at the trial and the directions that he gave to the jury in his summing up we may detect what led to the verdict. But the system proposed under amendment No. 5 would create a prejudice in favour of the convicted person who subsequently appealed. It would be said that in the one case the appeal court knew the reason for the verdict and in the other case they did not and could not know because juries do not have to set down their reasons.
For these reasons, I hesitate to support amendment No. 5 and I await the Lord Advocate's comments upon it. The second amendment appears to be common sense and worthy of support.

The Lord Advocate: As the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) said, the purpose of the amendment is to give an accused person the opportunity of electing to be tried without a jury where the delay might seem to make that an attractive option. The hon. and learned Member went perhaps a little too far in suggesting that there is a wide option in England to choose between having—

Mr. Fairbairn: indicated dissent.

The Lord Advocate: I see that the hon. and learned Member denies that it is a wide option. If that is so, we are at one. There is a very limited right in England to opt for a jury trial in certain situations. The option the other way does not arise. Nevertheless, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not place his argument on the situation in England. He related it to the emergency, and we should consider the merits of the argument in that context.
I agree with the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) that it is serious to depart from our normal canons of practice. In fact, it would be a radical dilution of justice to depart from jury trials altogether. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) made that point in his intervention. It is a very serious step. The practical issue at the end of the day is whether it is better to provide a new form of election which would contemplate a long and protracted strike or to proceed on the basis—which seems attractive to me—of the assumption that the strike will not be so protracted and that proper jury trials will be delayed but not for an excessive time. I accept that that places some burden on the Government to watch the situation carefully. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be premature to take the radical step that the amendment proposes. Not even in wartime were juries in Scottish criminal trials dispensed with.

Mr. Rifkind: Nor were courts.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for Galloway asked whether there had been an occasion when juries had been dispensed with in Scotland. I suspect that there were such courts during Cromwell's brief rule in Scotland. I see that the hon. and learned Member for


Kinross and West Perthshire is contradicting me. It would be unwise for me to get involved in the history of the matter.

Mr. Grimond: I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson). Am I not right in thinking that the extension of juries into civil cases was a pure import from England and contrary to the Scottish tradition?

The Lord Advocate: We are not discussing civil juries but the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It would be a bold person who would say that the emergency justified such an extreme departure from the normal canons of justice.
In view of what I have said about the Government's duty to keep a careful watch on matters, I hope that the Opposition will not press the amendment. There are two important defects in it. It does not deal wth a case where there is more than one accused and in which one accused elects to be tried without a jury. It would be intolerable and impracticable for that election without dealing with the problem of co-accused trials. It is not for the Government to suggest how the amendment could be remedied, but the solution may be to have the election confined to cases where all the co-accused agree to dispense with a jury.
The other drafting defect is that the amendment makes no provision to require the non-jury trial to be held during the emergency period and the month to follow it. I am sure that it is the Opposition's intention in tabling the amendment that the expedited form of non-jury indictment trial should be dealt with quickly—the element of urgency is written into it. None the less, the amendment does not provide that such trials should take place only during the period of emergency. Again, I think that it would be intolerable for such trials to take place after the emergency when the extra month had elapsed. I understand the motives behind the amendment, but I think that it would be unwise for the House to give effect to it today.
I sympathise with amendment No. 7, but I think that it is unnecessary. Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 specifically provides that
 A court in passing a sentence of imprisonment shall, in determining the period of

imprisonment or detention have regard to any period of time spent in custody by that person on remand awaiting trial or sentence.
The court will therefore also be required, in determining the period of imprisonment for which a person is sentenced, to have regard to the period in which he has been kept in custody awaiting trial during the emergency.
As a matter of practice, the prosecutor always draws the attention of the court to the period of time that an accused has spent in custody. I shall ensure that prosecutors will specifically draw the attention of courts to any period of time spent in custody because of the emergency.
I hope that the Opposition will not press the amendment.

Mr. Fairbairn: I listened to the Lord Advocate with care. I shall deal with the second matter first. The section of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 that he quoted is the section which guarantees trial under the 110-day rule. It is therefore a little unfair for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that we are proposing to suspend part of the Act but that the rest will continue to apply.
I hope that the Lord Advocate will make sure that prosecutors bring to the attention of the court in all cases not just that an accused person has, in terms of that section, been in custody for however long but that he will instruct procurators fiscal or advocates depute to invite the court to have regard to the fact that the period of detention was longer than it would have been but for the emergency period.

The Lord Advocate: I am happy to give the hon. and learned Gentleman that undertaking.

Mr. Fairbairn: That is an equitable answer to the problem and I am happy to rest upon it.
However, I am more worried about the first matter. I am not impressed by the Lord Advocate clinging on to the feeble straw of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson). It is odd to see members of the Government Front Bench clinging on to that straw, as they have done twice in the debate, but I suppose that any straw is welcome in a tumultuous ocean in which drowning is the only likely course.
It is a little difficult to take the Lord Advocate saying that our proposal is a desperate and radical departure from principle but that the Government will probably bring it in themselves if the strike lasts. I was interested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that even in the war we did not suspend jury trials. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said, we did not suspend the courts of justice either. Perhaps it is relevant to point out that we suspended trade unions during the war, and perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt from that.
I find it irritating to be caught on the question of the co-accused twice in one week. English lawyers were trying to defeat my Private Member's Bill on the basis that it was taking away rights from the co-accused by protecting the rights of other co-accused. Scottish lawyers are now trying to do the same. I accept that the principle may be difficult in co-accused cases. I have given the election to individuals, and I believe that they should have it. The complications of co-accused cases are extremely difficult, and I would not like to see multiple cases if—dare I say it?—mobbing and rioting cases came before the courts. I would wish the trial to occur only when it was impossible to have a jury trial.
I do not, as a matter of principle, like Ministers trying to run away from principles by hiding behind defects, particularly in emergency legislation. The Lord Advocate knows far better than any other hon. Member that I am an imperfect person who would be incapable of doing anything without defects, but, in the circumstances, I wish to leave amendment No. 5 before the House.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Lord Advocate a question that I have already asked him? As a layman, I should like to be assured that if by any chance this emergency continues and people are imprisoned without trial for a very long time, and their circumstances change, or they have compassionate grounds, or whatever, there will be some procedure by which their cases can be reviewed. It may exist already, but I want some reassurance on that if I may have it.

The Lord Advocate: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I had meant to deal with that when dealing with the amendment. There is a common law remedy in Scotland whereby a person who is detained and who feels that his detention is not warranted or justified in law can petition the High Court, and I think that remedy could be used in this situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 4

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES AND CRIMINAL DIETS

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 12, leave out
' (which application need not be intimated to the accused person) '.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 15, at end insert
' and such date shall be intimated to the accused person not less than seven days before it occurs '.

Mr. Rifkind: In clause 4 the situation is envisaged in which a criminal diet is not able to be held during the emergency period because of the closure of the courts, and when that situation occurs it shall be deemed to be adjourned as if the accused person had failed to appear until such date as the court may determine upon application by the prosecutor. The clause in its present form indicates that the prosecutor making such an application need not ensure that any intimation is given to the accused.
The situation, as I see it, has two possibilities. Eeither no intimation requires to be made in similar circumstances at the present time, in which case these words are completely superfluous and should not be in the clause; or, in circumstances similar to this, if it exists at the time, an intimation would be made, in which case there seems no good reason why an intimation should not be made in the circumstances provided for by this clause. I understand that it is the former rather than the latter which is likely to be the case, and that in these circumstances it is not normal to make intimation to an accused person. If that is the


case, I simply suggest that these words are superfluous, and we have enough verbiage in Acts of Parliament without making unnecessary contributions to them, so I hope the words can be quite happily deleted.
Amendment No. 10 provides in a related matter that where a diet has been adjourned to a new date on the application of a prosecutor, that date shall be intimated to the accused person not less than seven days before it occurs. I am aware that it would normally be the intention to provide such intimation to an accused person, but as I read the clause in its present form there is no provision for making that compulsory. Therefore, there could be the ludicrous situation of a new date having been fixed for an adjourned trial and the accused not having turned up because no one had chosen to intimate it to him and his nevertheless being penalised for his non-appearance. I am not saying that that would happen deliberately but it seems that it could happen by mistake. Therefore, there seemed to be very good grounds indeed for requiring that, in the circumstances provided for in this clause, intimation of a new date fixed for a criminal diet be made to an accused person within the reasonable time provided in this amendment.

Mr. Millan: On amendment No. 8, I understand that in normal circumstances such applications are not intimated to the accused in any case. But of course these are not normal circumstances. Therefore, it is right that we state in the clause matters which perhaps in other circumstances it would not be absolutely necessary for us to state so that there is no uncertainty. I am advised that not only is it not normal to give intimation of applications but in a sense it is unnecessary because it is the result of the application and the actual date for which the diet is fixed that is of interest to the accused.
Having said that on the first amendment, I think the logic is that, even if the second amendment may not be absolutely necessary because it would happen in any case, if one wants to make the clause completely logical and therefore state on the face of it everything that will happen the sensible thing would be to accept the

second amendment, which I think would do what the hon. Gentleman is most concerned with—ensure that the accused is not put at a disadvantage by not being informed about the date. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman would care to withdraw amendment No. 8, I should be perfectly happy to accept amendment No. 10, which I think would then give us a clause which would state the situation perfectly clearly.

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that the present circumstances are not normal; there can be little dispute about that. However, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's approach and his willingness to trade off one amendment against another, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 2, line 15, at end insert
' and such date shall be intimated to the accused person not less than seven days before it occurs.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 5

ARRANGEMENTS FOR COURT PROCEEDINGS DURING EMERGENCY PERIOD

Mr. Fairbairn: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 20, at end insert
' the Secretary of State after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session or Lord Justice General '.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we are to take amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 22, at end insert
' (1A) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (1) above it shall be competent for a judge of the High Court or a sheriff in the Sheriff Court, to make arrangements for the citation of possible jurors, and to hold jury trials '.

Mr. Fairbairn: This raises a matter of great importance. The logic of the Secretary of State's approach to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) attracted me. It displayed the logic of the accountant, namely, the definition of the art of going wrong with confidence. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept, on the basis of the judgment of Solomon, one half of the baby which I shall now try to sell to him.
Let us be clear about clause 5. It refers to the position in law. The law of the land is the law of the land. It is not the law of the land as the Secretary of State decides to tell it to us. The clause says:
 Without prejudice to any existing powers, a judge of any court may do anything during an emergency period…and…may authorise any person to do any such thing in relation to such proceedings.
The provision does not say that that should happen only if the Secretary of State says so or that the Secretary of State should take the responsibility for what happens. It merely says that a judge may take this action.
The practical and political effect of the provision—and we do not intend to let the Government run away from this—is that such people as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, will say"We all know that it is notorious that in Scotland it was the judges who indulged in the blacklegs' charter and in strike-breaking ". They would no doubt add"If the rights of man were left to the judges, there would be precious few left ".
Therefore, we want the Secretary of State to be the person who says to the judges"Thou shalt initiate the blacklegs' charter ". We want that to be clear and we do not want the right hon. Gentleman to hide behind his hideous desk in St. Andrew's House, or in his rather grander quarters in Dover House, where Lady Caroline Lamb had her adulterous association with the Duke of Wellington. I must add that that was not the case during the right hon. Gentleman's period of office. I think I can say, without risk of contradiction, that the Secretary of State has done nothing so romantic.

Mr. Millan: Nothing romantic in Dover House, anyway.

Mr. Fairbairn: The right hon. Gentleman says"not in Dover House ". He obviously wishes me to narrow the field of his Puritan past.
It is important that this matter should be made clear. With great respect to the Secretary of State, what he said was duplistic. With great respect to the Lord Advocate, what he said was incomprehensible and struck me as an attempt by a man chasing a rabbit to try to prevent it going down either of the alternative

holes through which it could escape because he did not wish it to do so.
This is an important matter of principle. When people start throwing political propaganda about, as the hon. Member for Bolsover did this afternoon, they demonstrate that they are more interested in the rights of those who refuse to serve the law than in those who lose their rights when they do. We must be clear that this is a responsibility which the judges assume either on their own initiative or with the permission of, or on the instructions of, the Secretary of State. Those are the alternatives.
The Secretary of State indicated this afternoon that he would take the responsibility to activate the procedure and, by inference, that the judges could not activate it without his authority. I think that that is what he said. I think that is what he meant. If he did not, let us hear what he did mean. It is essential that this should be clear. Those are the alternatives, and there is no other course. Either the judges can do it on the authority of the Secretary of State and not without it in any circumstances, or they can do it on their own initiative and the Secretary of State is irrelevant to the matter.
The Secretary of State seemed to be giving the sort of answer that Christ gave when he was shown a Roman coin and replied:
 Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
I have always thought that that was the most meaningless way of answering a question one could not answer. With great respect to the Almighty, it was a parliamentary answer.
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to give a reply such as:
 Render unto me the political decisions and unto the judges the decisions to employ people in the courts ".
Either it is a political decision activated by the authority of the Secretary of State—therefore amendment No. 2 says that the judges are doing it only with the authority of the Secretary of State—or it is something that the judges can do on their own initiative.
I have a deep and frightened suspicion that the Government hope that if anybody who is employed starts to jump up and down talking about blacking, the Secretary of State will peep—or more


likely the Lord Advocate, because he is a shorter man—over the Dispatch Box, showing as little of his anatomy as he possibly can, and say"Well, it was not us. It was the judges who did it. They are the blacklegs." In a situation as serious and constitutional as this, I think that the Secretary of State must take that responsibility and make it clear that he does so by allowing our amendment.
Our second amendment—No. 3—permits, if it were possible,
 a judge of the High Court or a sheriff in the Sheriff Court, to make arrangements for the citation of possible jurors, and to hold jury trials.
At present they are in suspension. In a way this goes back to the previous amendment, to enable the despatch of trials where people are held in custody. If the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), who has now departed, is so concerned about the radical constitutional change to the election of trial by jury, let us see whether, in such courts as are functioning and have staff who are loyal to their duties, we can allow them to organise jury trials.
That may mean that a judge has to appoint staff, on the authority of the Secretary of State, to cite jurors. If my recollection is correct, for every jury of 15 one needs to cite 45 people and it must be done by random selection from the electoral roll. One has to write out envelopes, send notice to the potential juror and record it. People may say that they cannot come, medical certificates have to be checked, and so on. It is a lot of work. That might require ancillary staff, but it certainly does not require anybody who is skilled in anything but the capacity to read writing or printing. In that regard, if what is standing between us and jury trials is the difficulty of the mechanics, let us give that power to appoint these people and let us for Heaven's sake not suggest that that is strike-breaking.
9.0 p.m.
If anyone does suggest that, let the Secretary of State, in all responsibility, accept amendment No. 2. Let him shame those who say that by asking"Would you rather that people lay in prison than that we asked one or two people to do the mechanics of citing juries so that justice may be done? "

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I would not wish to pretend that whichever way the Government moved in respect of this amendment it would make much difference to the way in which I view this clause. I take the view of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) that this clause is explicitly provided clearly and specifically in order to get round the practical effects of a strike. It does not matter whether we call it strike-breaking, which has become an emotive term and has value judgments underlying it, or whether we find some less value-laden term to describe it. The clause is clearly provided in order to get round the practical effects of a strike. That is the root of the objection which I and other hon. Members have to this clause.
Now that we have finally come to the clause which has aroused the most concern among hon. Members, it is a pity that after two weeks in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made some vitriolic speeches he finally rediscovers the good humour and wit for which we regard him with such affection.
I believe that if the clause is to go through at all, there is something to be said for amendment No. 2. My right hon. Friend would be well advised to take note of the manner in which it was moved, because it was made quite clear that, if there is to be strike-breaking or a circumvention of the strike, it should be he who should be taking the responsibility for it. My right hon. Friend should take note that that point was made by the Conservative Opposition. If I were him, I should be grateful if the Committee were sensibly to vote this clause out of the Bill and to leave me without that albatross to carry.
But if this power is to be given to anybody, there are a number of practical reasons why it should quite explicitly be given to my right hon. Friend rather than to those who sit as judges or sheriffs. First, it will not be all that easy to find any person to carry out the function of the clerks to the court. The only guidance we are given in clause 5 is that"any person"may be appointed to carry out this function." Any person"is not defined in any subsequent interpretative clause. Therefore, we await guidance as to whom the Secretary of State may have in


mind for this function. It certainly will not be an easy function to fulfil.
The one group of people referred to in our debate last week as perhaps stepping into the breach are solicitors. I have had many dealings with solicitors during my last five years as a Member of the House. I would not wish to malign a group that cannot reply to anything said under the cloak of privilege, but it would only be fair to say that my experience has been mixed. I am not necessarily convinced that it will be easy to find solicitors who will be capable of taking over the very detailed, skilled and unique functions of sheriff clerks and clerks of the High Court.
If such people are to be found, it is clearly sensible that the search should be mounted by, and should be a responsibility of, my right hon. Friend rather than any individual sheriff or judge seeking to fulfil the terms of the clause.
Secondly, there is the subsidiary question of the remuneration that will be received by any person who is appointed under this clause. It is very unlikely that solicitors will be prepared to do the work of sheriff clerks for the kind of remuneration which has led members of the Society of Civil and Public Servants and of the CPSA to go on strike in order to obtain an increase in that remuneration. But if it is suggested that the remuneration for solicitors who take this job on a temporary basis should be different and more generous in order to attract them to that kind of work, it will clearly have an inflammatory effect on the strike which at present is continuing.
If any judgment is to be made, and a decision has to be taken on it, it is better that it is taken by my right hon. Friend because we are dealing with an extremely sensitive political decision. It would be improper to leave that decision to any individual sheriff or judge. I do not know how any sheriff or judge could come to a decision about the remuneration to be received by any person whom he may appoint under this clause.
There is the matter of the relationship between the clerks and the judges and the sheriffs. It is an important relationship for the continuing good functioning of the courts. If the courts are to function competently and efficiently there should be a reasonable relationship between

the sheriffs, the judges and the clerks. I cannot imagine anything less likely to help that relationship to survive than for the sheriff or judge to appoint substitutes for the clerks during a period of industrial dispute. If it is possible to rescue and preserve that relationship after the emergency, it is better for the decision to be taken specifically by my right hon. Friend than by individual judges or sheriffs.
My right hon. Friend did not adequately deal with the point that I put to him on Second Reading. I referred him to the meeting yesterday of sheriffs in Glasgow who resolved that they did not want the power that is specified in the clause. My right hon. Friend may be able to clarify what they said to him. His response during Second Reading was that he would be taking the decision and that he would decide when this step should be taken. The decision of the sheriffs in Glasgow appears to be that they do not want this power in any event and do not want to have to work with people other than the clerks. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend clarified this issue.
Taking these factors together, it appears quite plain on practical grounds that if this power must exist—and I am opposed to it—it should be clearly vested in the Secretary of State rather than in the sheriffs or judges. As drafted, I find it difficult to persuade myself that the clause does that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Many of us are concerned about this clause, not so much as it was originally drafted because we understood quite clearly the purposes of the clause then. But during the debate on Second Reading many of us became confused by what the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate were saying.
The Secretary of State made it clear that he did not expect the power for the judges to appoint persons to do the work of the court to be exercised except under his direction. My suspicions were aroused when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) intervened to find out precisely what was meant. The Secretary of State ran quickly for cover and refused to clarify further what he had said. This confusion became confounded in the winding-up speech of the Lord Advocate, who is normally very clear. Up to that point


I was trying to put the best possible gloss on the matter. He did not, initially, want to allow any intervention on this point and when he eventually allowed an intervention he did not make himself clear.
This has made it more necessary to return to the matter in order not only to discover precisely what is meant by this clause but to try to distinguish precisely what is the Government's motivation. I hope that amendment No. 2 will give the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate the opportunity to clarify the issue. There are two causes for concern in the clause and the amendment seeks to remedy the matter. If the power to bring the clause into effect is to rest on a policy decision by the Secretary of State—and he implied that on Second Reading—the effect is to give the Secretary of State a power of direction to the judiciary to carry out a certain course of action.
I cannot understand why the Secretary of State was so unwilling to deal with this matter on Second Reading. If he gives such a direction it will be totally out of keeping with the administration of justice and in contradiction with the separate functions of the judiciary and the Executive. At no time in the past has there been interference in matters between the Executive and the judiciary. We must have clarification.
We are made even more suspicious by a matter about which hon. Members below the Gangway are particularly worried. The Secretary of State is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to soothe his hon. Friends below the Gangway by saying that although the judiciary has the power he does not expect it to exercise that power. The Secretary of State is trying to persuade his hon. Friends below the Gangway that he is imposing a threat to hold over those who operate the courts, and that his hon. Friends do not need to worry. In that way he hopes to gain his hon. Friends' support.
Alternatively—and this is a more sinister aspect which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) mentioned—the Secretary of State hopes to use the judiciary to break the strike. It is about that which his hon. Friends below the

Gangway are worried, and rightly so. He hopes to take shelter in saying that no policy decision has been taken but that the judges have taken action. It is that attitude to which his hon. Friends objected in relation to legislation passed under the Conservative Government. In this confusion tonight we see the extraordinary spectacle of the Secretary of State attempting to bring into Labour legislation a principle which Labour Members opposed and later repealed by giving the courts power to deal with a strike.

Mr. Grimond: The clause seems to mean exactly what it says. There is a third possibility. I suspect that the Secretary of State hopes to give a policy direction which the judges will not obey.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My mind is too pure. I did not imagine that such a motive would cross the Secretary of State's mind. But the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has greater experience than I in dealing with Labour Governments. That is a third possibility. I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify the position.
The principle of giving a direction to the judiciary is involved. Alternatively, is the Secretary of State trying to shelter behind the judiciary in relation to how he deals with strike action in the courts? The House deserves an explanation why the clause is worded in such a way. If the Secretary of State does not accept the amendment, we must have an explanation. If the direction can be given only in the event of a policy decision by the Secretary of State, our amendment is appropriate.
9.15 p.m.
If the Secretary of State is genuine in the intention that he explained on Second Reading, it should be the decision of the Secretary of State himself. It should not be left to the judges. We have to remember that the judges are not responsible for the administration of their courts. It is the Secretary of State, not the Lord Advocate, who is responsible for the administration of the courts. If we are to have a clause of this nature, the responsibility should not be left to the judges. It is not appropriate for them. It should be specifically spelt out that responsibility rests where it ought to rest. The Secretary of State should face up to


those responsibilities and not try to shelter behind a smokescreen.

Mr. Dewar: There seems to be some confusion between what the clause says and what almost everyone seems to be agreed the clause means. It may alarm hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to know that, if I understand their position correctly, I agree with them. I am not sure what is encompassed by the word"judge ". We are assuming, presumably correctly, that it is a High Court judge, a senator of the College of Justice or a sheriff. I do not know whether this is defined. Stipendiary magistrates or people operating in district courts are presumably not included.
The position of the Opposition is that a judge should have power on his own to do anything that can be done by the clerk of courts, sheriff clerk or other officer of the court within the narrow operations of the courts as at present authorised—bail appeals, full committals and so on—and that in a narrow group of hearings held in the criminal courts, the judge, off his own bat, should be able to complete the processes but that there should be a different position, if I understand the way the Conservative amendment has been drafted, if it is a matter of bringing in someone from outside to do these jobs.
In other words, we are looking for a two-tier situation in which the sheriff can act ex proprio motu in order to complete the processes, record the decision and do the necessary paper work, but that if he wishes to import someone from outside to do it he should have specific permission, not necessarily a blanket permission, from the Secretary of State who shall have a duty to consult certain legal figures named in the amendment.
I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make his opening speech on Second Reading. Although it was not spelt out in detail, I was under the impression that on the second and controversial element of the importation of outside staff he accepted that there would have to be specific authorisation by himself or by his Department and that there was no question of sheriffs or judges deciding on their own bat, having looked at a particular situation, that they would be justified in bringing in Mr. Joe Bloggs from the local bowling club, local solicitors

from round the corner or anyone else they found useful to tidy up matters.
I can hardly imagine that the Secretary of State or anyone else on the Government Benches would welcome that development. I have no doubt that the vast majority of sheriffs are manifestly sane and would not want to put themselves in that position. I understand that there is some evidence that the Glasgow sheriffs, having met and looked at the situation, have come up with the collective view that they would not wish to have that responsibility. Unfortunately, in any large group of people there are a few mavericks.
I can imagine that in some county courts a sheriff might enjoy the notoriety and excitement of bringing in outsiders. He might get a rush of blood to the head. He might have been incited by the opening speech of the hon. and learned Members for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), with its heady invective against strikes in general and this strike in particular. He may have taken at face value the fact that people are being tortured deliberately by sheriff clerks who, on the one hand, are praised as pillars of respectability and, on the other, belaboured by the same party as mobsters indulging in torture. Thus incited, that sheriff may well decide to go ahead and bring in outsiders. That would be extremely unfortunate. It would lead to a great deal of confusion and friction.
I must confess that I think that the Opposition have a reasonable argument, on a plain reading and interpretation of the clause. The first part of the clause refers to a judge's power to act himself, and the second part refers to his power to authorise any other person. The two parts are couched in the same way. If we want the two-tier solution that I want, and which I think the Opposition want, it seems clear, unless my right hon. Friend produces some ingenious argument—it might not be difficult to find one that I have not thought of, but apparently nobody else in the Chamber has thought of one so far—that, as the clause is drafted, no authorisation is needed from outside and that a judge may act himself or authorise another to act in exactly the same way.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right when he described what he wanted the clause to mean.


However, I am not clear that that has been achieved by legislative drafting. If the amendment is not acceptable, it seems that a form of words other than that which appears in the clause would be better. No doubt an amendment could be introduced in another place. If we are to build into the Bill the differentiation which in the interests of industrial peace seems invaluable—the bringing in of outside labour whenever it is thought justified in specific circumstances is clearly an extremely serious action and one that should be considered at the highest level before implementing it—something on the lines of the amendment will be necessary.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I add my support to the pleas of various hon. Members that the first amendment in the group be accepted by the Secretary of State. The wording of clause 5(1) gives power to judges to take action as they think fit. It is worded to give them permissive power. If a judge wishes to bring in contract labour from outside, he will be able to do so at any time of his choosing.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that it is the Secretary of State's responsibility to provide administration through the Scottish courts administration procedures. He is so responsible, and it would be wrong if that responsibility were to be passed to the judges.
There is a practical problem. Who will pay the contract labour that is engaged? There is nothing in the Bill to specify from where payment will come. No scale is arranged. The Bill merely gives power to the judge or sheriff to take on staff—in other words, somebody who will act the part of the absent court official.
The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) said that there may be the intention of bringing in volunteers. I am not sure whether that would be effective. The wording of the clause suggests that the amendment would be an improvement. It places upon the Secretary of State the right and duty to make arrangements to deal with the emergency if it continues and if it worsens. The Secretary of State has to decide at what time he should take action. I should have preferred the power to be limited by forcing the Secretary

of State to bring an order before the House of Commons. That would enable the House to judge whether the emergency required the specific powers that are being sought.
If additional help is to be brought in, some care will have to be taken over selection. Selection should not be left to an individual sheriff or judge. Competency, qualifications and confidentiality will have to be judged. There could be a conflict of interest. If local solicitors are introduced to act the part of sheriff clerks, the ones who will know most about court procedure will probably be those who engage in litigation before the local court. Technical problems would emerge.
For those reasons, I feel that the Secretary of State should take on board the arguments that have been advanced from both sides of the Chamber. He should assume the responsibility that is his and not pass the buck to the judiciary, as he seems to be doing in the clause.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) made it clear that he had comments to make about the amendment and that he objected to the clause, as its purpose was clearly to break the strike or to contribute towards doing so. That was disagreeable to him. It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should be prepared to argue that in the case of any strike whose deliberate purpose was to cause the maximum inconvenience to the community the community should not be entitled to take such action as appropriate to combat that strike activity. It is not satisfactory to say that the community should simply sit back and suffer for the duration of the strike and must accept whatever inconvenience and hardship the strikers seek to impose upon them, and that any action of the community—or those acting on its behalf—to reverse that inconvenience is disagreeable and anti-social.
This is not a simple dispute between employer and employee. The employees are using the public deliberately as a target. It should not be a matter of party controversy to suggest that the public and the Government should take all action in their power to ensure that inconvenience and hardship are kept to a minimum.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a meeting that he understood had taken place


with the sheriffs in Glasgow, who indicated that they were not happy with clause 5. The sheriffs did not have the benefit of today's contribution from the Secretary of State. Perhaps the sheriffs looked at the Bill and assumed that the Act would state the position once it came into force. It may be that they naively and innocently believed that under the Act the judges would have the right to decide the matter and that there would be no reference to the Secretary of State having a role to play. Perhaps the sheriffs, being innocent lawyers, assumed that that was how the Act would operate.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am advised that the decision to which the sheriffs came was that they would not work with any person appointed under this clause. I do not know whether that advice was correct. I understand that it was communicated to the Secretary of State's office. I wait to know what was that decision. If indeed that was the decision, it is incompatible with the line followed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rifkind: With respect, I do not believe that there is the remotest possibility that the sheriffs informed anyone that they would refuse to act and would black anyone appointed by the Secretary of State to assist them in the courts. I do not believe that that is the case. If the hon. Gentleman was so informed, he has been misinformed and should check his sources before making such a case.
The important point of principle is whether the sheriffs and the public should be entitled to look at an Act of Parliament and know what would happen or whether they should assume that the Act of Parliament did not help them and that they must look outside the Act at what a Minister said in the House of Commons—even if that contradicted what the Act appeared to indicate.
The Secretary of State accepted one of my earlier amendments because it sought to clarify the position. He said that another amendment should not be accepted because it was desirable that the maximum clarity should be included in the Bill so as to ensure that there could be no misunderstanding by anyone of the rights and obligations of those affected by the emergency provisions. If that argument is good in respect of the previous amendment, it is much more relevant to this clause. The public and

the judges should be in no doubt as to what is the statutory position and what are their rights and obligations.
This clause is different from the other matters now being considered. The Secretary of State indicated that the Executive would interfere in the actions of the judiciary. It may be that in certain limited circumstances that would happen. If so, it is proper that it should be done under a provision approved by Parliament and included in an Act of Parliament. The Secretary of State indicated that the amendment would do that. However, the amendment coincides with the statement of policy by the Secretary of State. It goes no further than what the Secretary of State indicated he intended to do. According to the amendment, the power should be exercised by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session or the Lord Justice General.
The Secretary of State said earlier that the judges would not be expected to use their powers under the provision until he had given permission for them to do so. If he did not mean that, the Committee will wait with eager anticipation to find out what he meant. At the very least, he has misled the Committee and allowed a great deal of time to be wasted in dealing with the matter simply as a result of his earlier speech in the House. He should either now speak and indicate what is the Government's view or he should approve the Opposition amendment and help to clarify the position. He must do one of those two things. He cannot simply ignore them.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I made a very clear statement during the Second Reading debate. I said that once the decision had been taken by me I had every intention that responsibility in these matters would rest with me and not with the judges. I made that absolutely clear. I said that once the decision had been taken by me it would be for each court to decide whether in its own particular circumstances action of this kind was necessary and was possible. It would appear that what I said on Second Reading has not penetrated to all corners of the Committee. Therefore, perhaps I should be allowed another chance to try to explain what the clause says.
The Committee ought to have some regard to the practicalities of the position. First, a number of statutory duties are laid on clerks of court or officers of court. This is where the problem arises. I need not explain these duties to the Committee, but there are a considerable number of statutes, rules of court, and so on, in which there is mention of the clerk of court or an officer of court. If the individuals concerned are not working, there are in those circumstances considerable difficulties in carrying out the business.
The clause says, in the first instance—leaving aside for a moment the part of the clause which has caused some concern—that the judge himself—and that includes a sheriff—may do anything during the emergency period that is normally done by the clerk or officer of the court. I hope that that is perfectly clear. It is a matter of allowing the courts to do the maximum amount of business by using the staff that is available and using the powers of the judges themselves in the most flexible way. I do not think that there is any particular difficulty about this.
The basis of the whole problem here, I repeat, is that there are certain individuals, officers of court and clerks of court, who have certain statutory duties and that it is not possible to set these aside and allow anyone else to carry out these duties. There are other parts of their duties which are not statutory, in the sense that there is no particular statutory provision dealing with them, and there can then be flexibility in the use of staff for dealing with these practical duties which the officers of court carry out. That is the first practical matter that I want to bring to the attention of the Committee.
Secondly, we are dealing here with an emergency, and I must therefore have some regard to the practicalities arising in the emergency period. This is not permanent legislation, in relation to which one might wish to outline in considerable detail what would happen, where the whole of the legislation was being changed—the rules of court, and so on, and the use of clerks or officers of court. We are dealing here with a temporary situation, and therefore I have to have some regard to the practicalities of it.
Thirdly, there is the question of the administration of the courts, which a number of hon. Members have touched upon. That is my responsibility and not that of the judge or sheriff. As matter of practice, it is not possible for a judge to appoint whom he wishes to deal with the business of the court. Recruitment and remuneration are for me and not for the judge. That limits what a judge can do in this emergency period, regardless of what might be written into the Bill.

Mr. Fairbairn: The Secretary of State seems to be mystified by the fuzz of his own mind. The fact is that we are passing law. The law says that a judge may in any particular case authorise any person to do any such thing in relation to such proceeding. If the suspicions that have been voiced by a number of hon. Members are not right, the law says that Sheriff West, if there were such a person, who is the sheriff in Wickland, if there were such a place, may say to his friend the local solicitor"I say, Charlie, I shall not have justice held up any longer in my court. Now that you are retired, will you come and act as my clerk of court?"There is no point in the Secretary of State saying that in practice he would not send his wages. That man is a volunteer. That is the law that we are passing.

Mr. Millan: If the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) will be patient I shall explain the clause, which has been discussed with the Lord President of the Court of Session.
I hope that the strike will not continue for any length of time, but if it does I shall have to consider the question of outside help. Even if the strike does not go on for a considerable time, there may be a local situation that will require outside help. In those circumstances, one would have to examine an individual's qualifications to see whether he was competent to perform the duties that would be laid upon him under this clause. The judge and not the Secretary of State is the obvious person to do that. He is the person for whom the individual will work, and he should decide the adequacy of his abilities. It is not for me to judge the adequacy of an individual who may be brought into the court during an emergency to do work normally done


by an officer of the court. That is why clause 5(1) is expressed in these terms.
The question whether outside help should be recruited—leaving aside the possibility that a particular local situation may arise in which that might be considered—raises major policy matters. Of course these matters should be the responsibility of Ministers and not of judges, whether of the High Court or of the sheriff court. I made it absolutely clear on Second Reading that all these matters of policy are for me.
I have explained why the clause is drafted in these terms. It deals with the practical situation of the individuals concerned rather than with the policy decision whether it would be desirable, necessary or inevitable that outside help should be provided for the courts. I have discussed this matter with the Lord President of the Court of Session and he told me that he wishes the policy decision to remain with me. He, as head of the judiciary, will not initiate action to recruit outside help in the absence of a policy decision of mine. That is the practical situation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: He does not need to.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) says that he does not need to, but he cannot have it both ways. If I were to accept amendment No. 2 or amendment No. 3, I could enforce outside help in the courts against the wishes of the Lord President of the Court of Session. But the way in which the clause is drafted at present means that it is not possible for me to do so. If the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns is worried about the Secretary of State interfering with the judiciary, he can avoid that by voting for the clause as it stands. The way to ensure that the Secretary of State would be able to impose outside help on the judiciary against its wishes is to vote for the Opposition amendments.
There is no intention on the part of the Lord President of the Court of Session—and he wishes this to be made clear publicly—to call in outside help in the courts in Scotland, short of a policy decision by me. Even where such a policy decision was made, the discretion on whether outside help in any set of circumstances

was needed would still rest with the individual judge or sheriff.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the stage to which he has carried his explanation. As far as he has gone, I go with him. But does he realise that in clause 5 as it is drafted there is nothing to prevent any individual sheriff and the sheriff courts of Scotland from appointing someone to assist him in a particular job? No matter what assurances the right hon. Gentleman has had from the Lord President, nothing in the Bill can prevent an individual sheriff from doing that. In those circumstances, what is the value of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that someone will be appointed only on his direction, as a result of a policy decision?

Mr. Millan: Of course it is theoretically, practically and legally possible for a sheriff to decide to use this clause in a way that will enable him to recruit outside help without a policy decision having been made, or even in defiance of a policy decision made by me. However, I have discussed this with the judiciary and I am satisfied that it will not, except in exceptional circumstances in which I would expect consultation, allow this to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and others were only too willing to assure me and impress upon me that the sheriffs and the judges did not want this power.
9.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns may have different information. The matter has been discussed not only with the Lord President but with the sheriff principals. It cannot be said that they are anxious—indeed, they are the opposite—to initiate the introduction of outside help to the courts, except on the basis that the decision on a policy matter of this sort is taken by the Secretary of State. If I felt that the policy decision should be taken, I would take it.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am beginning to wonder whether the lateness of the hour is disturbing the sanity of the Secretary of State. The matter has nothing to do with sheriff principals. Is it seriously suggested that, if Sheriff X decides to activate the law and appoint a retired local solicitor as sheriff clerk, he could be prevented from doing so by the sheriff principal? He


can produce an Act of Parliament and say"I am obeying the law of the land ".

Mr. Millan: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. The clause is drafted to allow a particular sheriff or judge, if he was so disposed, to appoint outside help. I have made that absolutely clear. The administration of the courts and remuneration are matters for the Secretary of State and my Department and not matters for the sheriffs or the judges. The Lord President has consulted the judiciary on the matter, and he has stated unequivocally that he wishes it to be publicly known that there is no intention on the part of the judiciary to recruit outside help, short of a policy decision by me. Therefore, the prospect of its happening is negligible.
If there is a slight deficiency—I am not sure why Conservative Members are so worried about it—the amendment proposes a remedy, allowing the Secretary of State, regardless of the wishes of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the results of any consultations and the wishes of the local sheriff, to impose outside help in the courts of Scotland. That would be undesirable.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If this is a genuine misunderstanding and the Secretary of State wishes to retain the policy decision, would not the answer be to lay down that the new powers to appoint persons in particular cases should operate from a date to be specified by the Secretary of State? The Secretary of State admits to my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that a sheriff could go ahead and make the appointment, although he thinks that is unlikely. On the other hand, the Secretary of State says that he wishes to retain the policy decision to himself. Would not the sensible thing be for the Secretary of State, by order, as from a date to be specified by him, to provide that this part of the subsection would come into effect? That would be a way to resolve what may be a misunderstanding.

Mr. Millan: That is a suggestion, and if the hon. Gentleman put down a suitable amendment it would be considered. However, we are dealing with emergency legislation. I understand that it is the general wish of hon. Members that any sensible steps to help to ameliorate the difficult

position in the Scottish courts should be taken. It seems odd to rush through this emergency legislation and then to say that one provision of that legislation could come into effect only later, by means of an order by the Secretary of State. The Opposition should consider the practical consequences of the amendment and what would happen if the strike continued, say, through the Easter Recess. It would be unwise of the House to accept the amendment.
I have explained that policy decisions will be taken by me. That is a matter of considerable importance, and I am in the House to be questioned by hon. Members. There is no question of my sheltering behind the judiciary. The responsibility is mine and I intend to discharge it. That is what the judges want me to do.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We appreciate that a policy decision may not be necessary, but, if it is made, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to communicate it to those affected and to the public?

Mr. Millan: There is no difficulty about that. Before I introduced the Bill, I answered two private notice questions about what was happening in the courts. It is unlikely that I should make a policy decision without being questioned about it in Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman wants an assurance that I would come to the House with any policy decision, I give him that assurance.
In case there is any misunderstanding, let me make clear, as I did on Second Reading, that I hope that that situation will not arise. I have no wish to get involved in such a procedure. However, if circumstances arise in which I feel that it is necessary that a decision should be taken, I will take the decision, communicate it to the House and be subject to cross-examination on it at that time.

Mr. Fairbairn: Perhaps I may assist the Secretary of State. We are genuinely worried, and he seems to be arguing about a matter which is pretty obvious. Would he consent to an amendment inserting in subsection (1) the words
 with the consent of the Secretary of State "?
That would make the subsection read:
 a judge…may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, authorise any person 
and so on.

Mr. Millan: If a manuscript amendment is tabled, I shall consider it. I said earlier that an authorisation must have regard to the qualifications of the person concerned, and that is a matter for the judge to decide in the light of local circumstances. The hon. and learned Gentleman would not expect me to make decisions about individuals.
If a manuscript amendment were tabled in the terms proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would consider it. We shall have a Report stage because I have already accepted one amendment and it might be better for manuscript amendments to be considered then. Perhaps we could have your guidance, Mr. Godman Irvine, on whether any such amendment should be discussed at the Committee stage or later.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): As there has to be a Report stage, the Secretary of State may consider that he should deal with any manuscript amendments at that time.

Mr. Millan: I am sure that the House will accept that suggestion. It would be more convenient to discuss manuscript amendments on Report because that would give me time to have a look at them.
I hope that I have made the situation clear. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to make a policy decision. If it does, the responsibility will be mine. That is the view not only of myself but of the judges. They, as well as hon. Members, will be anxious to read my explanation.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Dissatisfaction with the clause has been expressed from both sides of the Committee and in every speech except that of the Secretary of State. However, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Government will be prepared to consider the matter again, through manuscript amendments on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 23, after ' a ', insert ' certified '. The amendment refers to clause 5(2), which states:
 During the emergency period, a copy of any document lodged in court in connection

with legal proceedings…may be accepted by the court in lieu of the original…
Nowhere is there stated in the clause any way of ensuring that the copy that is to be used by the court and be considered as relevant, as the original would normally be, should be a certified copy or in any way guaranteed to be a true record of the original document. This seems to me to be a necessary and desirable precaution and I hope that the Government will find the amendment acceptable for that reason.
Given that these are rather exceptional circumstances that are requiring the House to allow copies of documents to be used where originals would normally be necessary, the requirement that the copy should at least be a certified copy, thereby giving some indication or guarantee of authenticity, would appear to be a highly desirable precaution, and I hope that the Government will find this acceptable.

The Lord Advocate: I understand the spirit in which this amendment is moved, but it is not really well directed. The amendment does not specify who has to certify that the document is a copy, but whoever had to do it could hardly certify that the document was a true copy in the absence of the original, which in this situation of crisis may be locked away in a safe to which access cannot be gained. That is the reason for a copy being necessary.
Moreover, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the clause also provides in subsection (2) that it is open to a party who disputes whether it is a true copy to prove that it is not a true copy.
It would therefore appear to me that for both these reasons the amendment is misconceived and that it is better to leave matters as they are in the Bill as at present worded.

Mr. Fairbairn: The Secretary of State inserted a word into this clause when he was explaining it on Second Reading which is not in the clause. It gives me some cause for concern, and with your permission, Mr. Godman Irvine, I think it is better if we raise it rather than let it pass. It is the word"original ", because the Secretary of State said several times"copy of an original document ". The clause does not say"original ", and if, as the Lord Advocate says, it is locked up


in a safe it is clearly difficult to take a copy of it.
Therefore, as the clause stands, it could be a copy of a copy of a document, because the word"document"does not imply the word"original ". I want to know whether it is the original, as the

Secretary of State said, or whether a copy of a copy will do.

The Lord Advocate: The word used in the Bill is"document"and that would, of course, carry the inference which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. It may be that one would be accepting a copy of a copy.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Grimond: I am glad that we shall have a chance to consider this matter, because otherwise we shall drive a cart and horses through the construction of the law.
Is the Lord Advocate satisfied that there are adequate sanctions in the Bill to prevent frustration of its provisions? He knows that in certain strikes records have been removed and doors locked. If that were to happen with the intention of thwarting the Bill, I take it that that would amount to contempt of court. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will answer that point.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I do not think that we should allow this clause to pass without addressing ourselves to the principle raised. I am opposed to the principle of the clause, and I should like to see it removed. I have advised the Government of the course I intend to take.
I supported my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on Second Reading because there are items in clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill on which the Government have no option. However, I do not think that that stage has been reached in respect of the powers in clause 5. We have not yet reached the position where such powers are essential. Indeed,

my right hon. Friend has already made it plain that he hopes that that time will not arise. Therefore, since I cannot support the principle of the clause, I feel that the Committee would be well advised to delete it.
I have always understood that in an industrial dispute it is important to do nothing to raise tensions and tempers. However, that is exactly what we are doing in clause 5. We are providing specific authority and powers, either to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to the courts, to circumvent the practical effects of this dispute. I can think of nothing that is more likely to increase tensions and tempers.
What we are proposing is, in a sense, worse. We are not saying that the powers will be exercised and that people will be appointed. We are putting the Secretary of State in the position of having the power to take that decision. I cannot imagine any power that I would less wish to have if I were Secretary of State.
We all know what will happen if we pass this clause. From tomorrow onwards, my right hon. Friend will face constant pressure demanding that he takes a policy decision under clause 5 and instructs judges that, since they now have the power, they should appoint people. My right hon. Friend will be in an invidious position. The moment he takes such a decision, he will further inflame the passions of those involved in the dispute.
There remains the interesting, and as yet unresolved, question of remuneration. In an earlier discussion I referred to the remuneration of"any person ". I understood the Opposition spokesman to say that"any person"to be appointed under clause 5 would be a volunteer, and, therefore, the matter of remuneration would not arise. I hear my right hon. Friend saying that that is nonsense. I could not concur with him more, because I have yet to find much voluntary labour on the part of anyone involved in the legal profession. I should be extremely surprised if we discovered it now. If I picked up my right hon. Friend's words correctly, he certainly imagines that remuneration will come into it. Indeed, he said quite specifically from the Dispatch Box that the decision on remuneration would be his and that it could not be taken by sheriffs or judges individually.
That begs the question"What will be the decision that my right hon. Friend will reach?"Does he really expect that he will be able to recruit solicitors to do the work on a fee or a paid basis for remuneration which is no more than the men were receiving before taking strike action in order to increase their remuneration? Indeed, if I know anything about solicitors' fees, they are unlikely to do this job at all without remuneration which exceeds the amount being demanded by those who are currently on strike. I cannot imagine anything which will inflame the dispute more than paying solicitors an income which is greater than that which the men were receiving before they went on strike.
The fact that the measure will inflame tempers and make it more difficult to resolve the strike is not central to my objection to the clause. I object to the clause because I think that it is an attack on the basic principle that working people have the right to withdraw their labour. That right to withdraw labour is an essential civil right. It is not only an essential civil right, but it has been an important power of working people by which they have won many gains throughout history.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) attacked me earlier for my view on this matter. If he were present, I would say to him that he was merely being consistent in his response to my anxiety about the clause, because when we debated the matter last week during the general, wide-ranging debate he made his position perfectly plain. His position was that the right to withdraw labour should be withdrawn from this particular category of work force. He believes that they should not have the right to strike. If he takes that view, naturally he will support clause 5 and resist the attempt of people such as myself to remove it from the Bill.
Sometimes when I listen to the hon. Gentleman—this goes for some of the other speakers on the Opposition Benches—I tend to believe that the dispute is purely between the court staff and the Government and that that is the extent of the union's membership and the negotiations for a settlement. The action in the courts is part of a much wider dispute and negotiation. I say to the hon.

Member for Pentlands that if the Civil and Public Services Association had really wanted to whip up the public and inconvenience the public, without regard to the hardship that would be caused, there is one obvious course that it could take which it has hitherto refused to take, and that is to pull out the clerks who work for the DHSS. Within seven days that would have a massive impact on a large chunk of the population. The CPSA has been responsible, in my view, in the selective action that it has taken because it has not chosen to hit the most vulnerable section of the population.
There is a, way in which the public can have the inconvenience removed. It is not the case, as the hon. Member for Pentlands said, that the choice is between leaving the public to suffer or passing clause 5. There is another way, which is to obtain a fair and honourable settlement to the dispute, which is at present under negotiation between the Government and the Society of Civil and Public Servants. The answer is to resolve that dispute.
Here we come back to the fundamental danger of clause 5. What clause 5 does—it is inescapable that this is the purpose of the clause—is to alter the balance of power between the work force which has chosen to withdraw its labour and the Government who are inconvenienced by that withdrawal of labour. That is the whole purpose of clause 5. It alters the balance by giving the Government the right, power and ability to circumvent the inconvenience they are suffering because of that withdrawal of labour. In altering that balance it makes it more likely that the settlement which will subsequently be achieved is more favourable to the Government and less favourable to those involved in the dispute.
I understand that when one is the employer it is easy to persuade oneself that redressing the balance of power so that one can have the advantage appears progressive and responsible. I can understand that when one is in the position of an employer it is difficult to regard that measure as regressive.
I have great faith that my right hon. Friend would not abuse that power, and would use it sparingly, if he had to use it. But what we are doing tonight is to create a precedent. We are saying that if there is a dispute in which the right to bring in additional labour can be provided


only by legislation, we will not hesitate to come to the House and demand that such legislation be put before it. We are creating that precedent.
I do not believe that it is in our interests to create that precedent. There may be a time when my right hon. Friend is not Secretary of State for Scotland and when that precedent may be valuable to those who serve in his place. It is important that we should save the Secretary of State from creating that precedent by taking clause 5 out of the Bill.

Mr. Millan: I was asked two questions. First, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked whether the clause, and, indeed, the Bill, could be thwarted by action taken by those who were in dispute. The clause itself provides for a remedy in the case of documents, where delays or dislocations may be caused by lack of access to documents. I believe that in that regard the clause will be effective.
I also believe that if, in the event, the whole of subsection (1) had to be brought into operation—of course, the part involving the judges themselves will come into operation immediately—practical ways could be found to get round the kind of difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman envisaged. But local situations vary quite considerably. Some courts are working normally, some are working almost normally and some are not working at all, except for emergency or very urgent proceedings. Therefore, one must look at the local situation. In those circumstances, it would be wrong for me to give an absolute guarantee that we would have no dislocation or difficulty.
My right hon. and learned Friend was asked a similar question about the situation when the strike was over and whether there would be continuation of action which might cause difficulties. I cannot guarantee that that would not happen, but it would be my intention that every effort should be made to deal with any practical problems that might arise.
I do not think that I shall satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) by anything I say with regard to the principle of clause 5. During the period of this dispute I have never said that there should be, as it

were, a legal bar on people employed in the courts from striking. That would be a matter for consideration and does not come under this Bill. If at any time there were a question of negotiation about no-strike clauses in agreements—this is something that is adumbrated in the Government-TUC agreement, although the particular category of workers who might be covered are not outlined—one would have to look at the consequences of that. I believe that one would want to do so not in a legal framework but in a framework of negotiation between the unions concerned and their employers.
That is how I envisage it, and that is how the Government-TUC agreement envisages it. However, that goes into territory which is well beyond this Bill. At present there is no question, in terms of voluntary agreement, and certainly none in terms of legal provisions, of in any way diminishing the right to strike of anyone employed in a Scottish court.
The Government have certain wider responsibilities. I have a wider responsibility to see that, so far as I can possibly achieve it, the courts continue to function, because that is in the interests of every citizen in the land. That, therefore, must be my primary responsibility. There are circumstances in which that responsibility cannot be discharged to its fullest degree because the practicalities are against it. So far as I can discharge these responsibilities, I intend to see they are discharged. That is the purpose of this Bill. If clause 5 were eliminated from the Bill it would seriously weaken the Government's overall pursuit of their objectives.
10.15 p.m.
I have dealt to a considerable extent with the question of outside help. I hope that on Report we shall be able to insert an amendment which will more clearly express the obvious wish of the House. My wish is that it be seen that the responsibility for policy matters is mine and not that of the judiciary. I should welcome an amendment that allows that to be incorporated in the Bill in a more explicit way.
However, I believe that these powers may be necessary, though I hope they will not. If they were necessary, and if in my judgment I felt that they should be implemented, I should have no hesitation in


saying that they should be. That is a matter for subsequent decision by me. It would be a considerable mistake if the Bill did not include those powers, even provisionally, for implementation by the Secretary of State if he decided that it

Division No. 102]
AYES
[10.17 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
Penhaligon, David


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Rhodes James, R.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gourlay, Harry
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bates, All
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hardy, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sever, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Horam, John
Snape, Peter


Buchanan-Smith. Alick
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Spriggs, Leslie


Campbell, Ian
Hunter, Adam
Sproat, lain


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cohen, Stanley
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Stoddart, David


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stott, Roger


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Strang, Gavin


Cowans, Harry
Lambie, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Crawshaw, Richard
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
McCartney, Hugh
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McElhone, Frank
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Maclennan, Robert
Ward, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Weatherill, Bernard


Deakins, Eric
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, James (Pollok)


Dempsey, James
Molloy, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Dewar, Donald
Monro, Hector
Whitlock, William


Doig, Peter
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Whitney, Raymond


Dormand, J. D.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Woodall, Alec


Dunlop, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Newton, Tony
Younger, Hon George


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Noble, Mike



Fairgrieve, Russell
O'Halloran, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE. AYES:


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Ted Graham and


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Park, George
Mr. John Evans.


NOES


Allaun, Frank
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Bean, R. E.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Litterick, Tom
Torney, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Loyden, Eddie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Cryer, Bob
Maynard, Miss Joan



Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Flannery, Martin
Parry, Robert
Mr. Robin F. Cook and


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Robert Hughes.


Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF OPERATION OF S. 17 OF STAMP ACT 1817, ETC.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 40, at end add

was absolutely necessary in the interest of justice in Scotland.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Commitee divided: Ayes 116, Noes 22.
' and any such deed accepted by the keeper shall be valid and effective for the purposes of loans made under the Building Societies Acts notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in such Acts '.

The clause seeks to enable deeds to be recorded in various registers by virtue of mitigating the penalites for non-payment of the correct stamp duty. Its secondary purpose is to enable stamp duty to be paid at a later stage and for any deed to be used as an adminicle of evidence for whatever purpose is required. Apart from the industrial dispute in the courts,


there is an industrial dispute that involves the stamping office. Although some lawyers have taken deeds from Scotland to London where there is no such dispute, for the purposes of most solicitors that is not feasible.

The effect of the non-stamping of a deed is that building societies, in terms of the regulations provided in the Building Societies Acts, are unable to instruct the encashment of cheques. The cheques issued to solicitors are capable of being encashed only where there is a valid security, namely, a principal writ plus a standard security that is available for registration.

The effect of the clause is to enable deeds to be recorded although they are not stamped, provided that they are stamped later. That is sufficient for a purchaser because it allows him to stamp the deed at a later stage.

If the purchaser neglects to stamp the deed, that will be at his own risk. The deed will become valid if the time limits are not followed correctly as set out in the clause. However, the problem that arises, as I read the clause, is that it contains nothing that will override the specific building society provisions, which make it a breach of the rules of a society to release cheques and to have cheques encashed unless there is a security that is valid for all purposes.

There is no security from the lender's point of view unless stamp duty is paid at a later stage. Bearing in mind the omission that I see in the clause, there will be difficulty in overcoming the prohibition that exists in building society legislation. I am not convinced that the clause as framed would allow a building society to permit solicitors to encash cheques and thus complete hereditable transactions.

That will have many practical effects, and bad effects, on individual citizens. Stamp duty is fixed at a fairly low level, and these days a fairly ordinary bungalow or semi-detached house may be priced from £18,000 to about £28,000. That sort of property comes within the stamp duty bracket. If the loan cannot be provided by the building society, the purchaser has to take finance from a bank on a bridging loan, which can be extremely expensive because of the interest that is charged.

I foresee a practical problem emerging from clause 6. The amendment is intended to rectify the position and to make it possible for building societies to authorise to their solicitors the encashment of cheques. I am told that one building society is prepared to run the risk of telling its agents that it is prepared for its cheques to be encashed in the emergency situation, but other building societies have specifically requested their agents not to do so. Therefore, there is a real problem. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, which is designed to deal with the specific circumstances of that case.

The Lord Advocate: Building societies are normally unwilling to lend to a borrower unless he has a recorded title to his property. At present, a borrower cannot record his title if his property is valued at £15,000 or more without his title being duly stamped. That gives rise to the problem.
In the Government's view, the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 6 allows a borrower to obtain a recorded title to his property even though the title is not duly stamped. It specifically provides that a deed so recorded should be available for all purposes, provided that it is stamped within a certain period. I am assured that there is nothing in the Building Societies Acts to prevent building societies from lending on the security of such a title, although doubtless they will take steps to ensure that the borrower's title is duly stamped as soon as it is returned by the keeper after it has been recorded. I hope that any doubts will have been resolved and that if there is an administrative problem within a building society it will have been removed.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: rose—

The Lord Advocate: I shall complete the argument, as I wish to point out a defect in the amendment.
The amendment is defective because it provides that any deed accepted by the keeper should be valid for the purposes of loans by building societies. The deeds which may be accepted by the keeper for recording or registering in terms of this clause go much further than that. They are not restricted to deeds relating to loans on property. They could


include deeds such as trust instruments. It would be nonsense to say that such an instrument should be effective only for the purpose of making loans.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am not sure that I entirely accept what the Lord Advocate said. However, I prefer to leave that aside and concentrate on the situation which may arise in the absence of a specific provision to override the prohibition in the Building Societies Acts. I have been informed that a prohibition exists. I follow the rather involved argument which the Lord Advocate made on that subject. However, I am not convinced by it. I ask the Lord Advocate to do a little more research on the matter and consult the building societies before the Bill goes to another place.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

REFERRAL FROM CHILDREN'S HEARING

' No days falling within the emergency period shall count in the computing of the 28 days time-limit specified in section 42(4) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (within which period referrals from a children's hearing must be heard by a Sheriff in Chambers.). '—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
At the time the new clause was put down, it seemed that referrals from children's hearings to sheriff courts might be time-barred. Since then I have received information from which it appears that these cases are going ahead. I should like the Lord Advocate to confirm that. In any case, the new clause may be covered by another part of the Bill. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will clarify that point.

The Lord Advocate: I am happy to respond to the point put to me by the

hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). I confirm that these referrals are proceeding in many areas. In so far as they are not proceeding in any area, they are covered by clause 2. Accordingly, with that reassurance, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

PICKETING OF COURTS

' During the emergency period it shall be an offence for anyone to picket a court of law in order to persuade other persons to desist from entering the said court in connection with the administration of justice therein'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am well aware that the question of picketing is controversial and goes well beyond this dispute and the question of the closure of the courts. Nevertheless, we are dealing with an emergency Bill, and the matter before the Committee at this stage is the appropriate procedure that should be permitted during this emergency.
We know that outside a large number of the courts in Scotland officials who normally work within the courts are seeking, by normal picketing methods, to prevent the entry into the courts of justice of persons seeking entry therein.
This is happening in two quite distinct sets of circumstances. On the one hand, it is happening in respect of sheriff courts and other buildings which are empty because of the strike and where the picketing is not significantly different from the picketing of any industrial premises during any industrial action. But picketing of a different nature is also taking place, and that is in those circumstances where legal actions of various kinds, albeit of a restrictive nature, are continuing.
For example, in the Court of Session and in the High Court of Justiciary a number of legal matters are still being determined by judges, and bail appeals


are being heard by judges in certain of the courts. In certain of the sheriff courts trials are proceeding, sometimes because the sheriff clerks have not come out on strike and on other occasions because, although industrial action has been taken, it has not been completely successful. In those circumstances, the picketing of courts where legal procedures of various kinds are continuing to take place seems to me to be particularly objectionable. It is against the public interest and it is a form of picketing which cannot be justified, even in the present circumstances.
If, in a particular court, it has been possible to proceed with, say, a summary trial, and pickets outside that court are carrying out normal picketing, they are coming dangerously close to interfering with the administration of justice. What is the purpose of the picket, other than to try to prevent someone who has a legitimate purpose in entering the court from carrying out that legitimate purpose? If, in a particular sheriff court, there is a summary trial, or even a jury trial—in one or two of the sheriff courts this may still be possible—and that court is being picketed, what is the purpose of the picket?
Who are the pickets trying to prevent from entering the court? Presumably they will seek to dissuade the judge from entering the court. If they are unsuccessful in that respect, they will seek to dissuade both the prosecuting lawyers and the defence lawyers from crossing the picket line. If they are unsuccessful with the lawyers, presumably even the accused, if he has been out on bail, is a person who has to cross the picket line. Ministers are shaking their heads, but that is exactly what is happening in Scotland. Perhaps if they visited Scotland and realised what is happening in the courts north of the border—these things are not happening in England and Wales—they would realise the seriousness of the situation.
10.45 p.m.
If a summary trial is being held—as it is in several sheriff courts in Scotland—and if the court is being picketed, the accused has to go through the picket line, with all the problems that that involves. It is not simply the accused, because there are witnesses who are being called, either by the prosecution or by the defence. They have to take a very important decision whether to fulfil their legal requirements

to attend the court as they have been summoned to do, and thereby cross the picket line. If they are trade unionists, it may be very difficult for them to decide whether to accept the request of the pickets and refuse to enter the court, thereby risking the wrath of the court and possibly being dealt with for contempt of court for refusing to attend.
If there are the occasional jury trials still being held in the sheriff courts, the people called for jury service also have to face the problem whether to cross the picket line and report for jury service and thereby be seen to help the administration of the courts or to accept that they should not cross that picket line.
It is not a decision that a judge, juryman, lawyer, witness or accused should have to make. Picketing a court of justice is different from picketing any other establishment. There is no problem if nothing is happening in that court. If the building is empty, no one is particularly aggrieved. But where legal proceedings are continuing, in however truncated a form, it should be a specific offence for a person to picket that court. At present, persons seeking to prevent others from entering court might already be coming perilously close to breaking the law, and I should be interested to hear the Lord Advocate's view.

The Lord Advocate: Has the hon. Member had a report from anyone who has been stopped by a picket from entering a court of law?

Mr. Rifkind: I had hoped that the Lord Advocate would answer my point. He has evaded the question and put a separate matter. In Edinburgh the sheriff court, Court of Session and High Court have been regularly picketed each and every day for a greater part of the day. On each occasion there have been legal proceedings inside the court.
The Lord Advocate has the ultimate responsibility. Is he satisfied that lawyers, judges and other members of the public should have to choose whether to cross a picket line or possibly break the law by failing to turn up in court? If not, how will the Government respond to that problem? We do not know whether it is already a criminal offence to seek to persuade someone against responding to a summons to appear in court. It is a legal matter. If it is already an offence, the new clause


may be unnecessary. If not, why does the Lord Advocate feel that the Government need not act?

Mr. Sproat: I support most strongly the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). If the Lord Advocate indicates his view, it may not be necessary to have the new clause. Picketing of courts is the most objectionable kind of picketing that can be imagined.
The Lord Advocate asked for examples. I have had no evidence so far of anyone who has been stopped from entering a court, but we have heard that the strike could go on for weeks or months. If tempers get inflamed and the strike becomes more bitter, one could imagine that happening in one's more nightmare moments. Those who work in court might decide every two or three years that they are underpaid, and strikes could become a regular feature of our way of life. If that happened, pickets could well take it into their heads to seek to persuade people not to enter court and bring improper pressure to bear.
We have already this year experienced other sorts of pickets outside places of work, taking people's names and threatening to ensure that in future they are blacked. Pickets could begin to black people entering the courts, in the same way as they black road hauliers and companies using those hauliers. The new clause is designed to prevent that.
I hope that the Lord Advocate will either accept the spirit of the new clause or tell us that any sort of picketing of the courts of law is illegal, and that if evidence were brought of pickets trying to interfere with the course of justice those concerned would be subject to legal action.

Mr. Millan: It would be unwise for the Committee to accept a new clause of this sort. The law of picketing is difficult and controversial. It would be very unwise for me to agree to amend it, even if I accepted the merits of the new clause, which I do not.
The new clause is defective anyway, because it provides for an offence without a penalty. I do not want to see that written into Scottish law. It is an interesting concept, but I do not want to consider it at this hour of the night.

Mr. Fairbairn: If I may twist the tail of the Secretary of State back in his own face, may I ask him whether there are any other premises in the land where, if a picket persuades someone attempting to enter that he should not do so, he becomes the subject of a criminal penalty? If there is not, we are not inventing a crime without a penalty, but a penalty without a crime.

Mr. Millan: That is inaccurate and has nothing to do with that point that I was making about the clause being defective. Even if it were not defective, I would not be in favour of it.
It is unwise to attempt to right the law of picketing in this way. Picketing is allowable if it is peaceful. The Lord Advocate made a statement about the law of Scotland on picketing in a written answer on 31 January. That answer bears reading because it sets out the position clearly.
People are free to cross picket lines at any time. There is no legal right to turn people away. Therefore, there is no question of a picket at a court of law compelling anyone who wishes to cross the picket line not to do so. The Lord Advocate asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr Rifkind) whether he has any information of illegal picketing, intimidation, or of people being turned away from the courts unreasonably or improperly, whether they were judges, sheriffs, police, witnesses or accused. He did not answer that, so I assume that there is no such evidence. If there were any evidence of improper or illegal picketing in this dispute, the right course would be to give that evidence to the police, who would then be able to see that the law was upheld.
It would be very unwise to put this new clause in the Bill, and in the circumstances I do not recommend it.

Mr. Rifkind: The Secretary of State has given an unsatisfactory reply. He has stated that he has received no evidence of any illegal picketing or intimidation being carried on outside the courts of Scotland. At no time did I suggest that there had been, and that was not the point of my new clause. The picketing that I have seen in Edinburgh has been entirely peaceful, within the present law and without the unfortunate


features that there have been in other disputes.
The point that I was making, which obviously failed to penetrate, was that even peaceful persuasion outside a court of law, when there are proceedings going on within the court, is improper and should not be permitted. The purpose of picketing—even peaceful persuasion—is to seek to persuade witnesses, the accused or others involved to fail to perform their public and legal duty of appearing in court. The Secretary of State is putting members of the public in an invidious position—particularly ardent trade unionists. He is saying that if they are required by law to attend as a witness any court during the course of the dispute, and if in order to enter that court they have to cross a picket line—albeit of peaceful persuasion—they have to choose between going against their principles and crossing the picket line, and maintaining their principles and thereby incurring the strong likelihood of being fined for contempt of court. A trade unionist may feel strongly about crossing picket lines—unlike the Secretary of State—and the choice is unfair.
The choice is more likely to have to be made as a result of the emergency legislation, because the point of the Bill is to facilitate a greater number of court proceedings than there have been in the last few weeks. If the Bill has any effect, the possibility of people being required to attend court will increase, and therefore the number of people expected to cross a picket line in order to fulfil their legal duty will also increase.
The Secretary of State has failed to understand the purpose of the new clause, much less to answer it. He is showing gross insensitivity to the problems of those members of the public in Scotland who have to cross a picket line to fulfil their legal duty.

Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the manuscript amendment in the names of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the

hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).

Clause 5

ARRANGEMENTS FOR COURT PROCEEDINGS DURING EMERGENCY PERIOD

11 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, in page 2, line 21, after"may ", to insert
 with the consent of the Secretary of State ".
I do not want to delay the House further at this hour. We had a considerable debate on this matter in Committee, and the Secretary of State could have saved the House a great deal of time if he had been a little more sensitive to our arguments.
The amendment covers the point that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make earlier, that if a member of the judiciary wishes to appoint someone to help him or to take the steps specified in clause 5 he will be able to do so only with the consent of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman will have to make a policy decision before that part of the clause comes into effect. Given the co-operative and constructive manner in which the Opposition have endeavoured to assist the Government to improve this essential legislation, to ensure that it works properly and that it has the effects that the Government wish but have failed to ensure, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the amendment.

Mr. Millan: I am willing to accept the amendment. The House is clearly desirous that the Secretary of State, in whose abilities it has such tremendous confidence, should appear in this and every other piece of legislation at every opportunity.
It has always been my intention that I should have to take the policy decision, but not that I should have to give detailed authorisation to every individual who may be appointed under the clause. That is perhaps an unnecessarily detailed involvement, but the House wants the explicit role of the Secretary of State put into the Bill, and the amendment achieves that aim.
Conscious of the confidence that the House reposes in me, I am happy to


recommend that the amendment should be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (ENERGY POLICY)

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the Order Paper there is item No. 2 entitled"The Community's Energy Policy ", which reads:
 That this House takes note of European Commission Documents R/2311/78, R/2163/78 and R/2712/78, and endorses the Government's approach in pursuing the national interest and those of United Kingdom industries and consumers in discussion of these proposals.
In the Vote Office there is a document of deposited business at the EEC Council. On that document we see that on Tuesday 27 March there is to be a meeting of the Energy Council concerning the business covered by the motion. I am seeking information whether there has been a request to make a business statement, either tonight or at some other time, because if the House is unable to debate the motion before next Monday evening the Government will not have fulfilled their obligation to bring such a motion to the House before a decision is made at the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): That is not a matter for me, although I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be noted in the right quarter.

KNOTTINGLEY (GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]

11.5 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I regret the necessity of having to raise yet again

on the Floor of the House the subject of general medical service on the Warwick estate at Knottingley.
I have referred to this problem on two previous occasions, first in an Adjournment debate on 24 November 1972, and, secondly, in a general debate on the Health Service on 20 April 1978. I do not wish to repeat in detail what I said on those occasions, but I remind the House that the problem relates to a building now owned by the Wakefield area health authority. The building was constructed in 1967–68 to provide a health centre for a housing estate at Knottingley known as the Warwick estate, on which between 5,000 and 7,000 people now live.
Although the building was specifically designed to include consulting rooms for GPs, no family doctor surgeries have yet been held there. My constituents on the estate have to travel either a mile to the next nearest surgery at Ferrybridge or two miles to a surgery at Cow Lane in Knottingley, most of them passing the health centre on their way. This is a silly situation, which causes annoyance and frustration locally.
In August 1977, 1,040 adult residents from households, with an additional 1,260 children, signed a declaration saying that if a new practice was established at the health centre they would, in general, wish to be included on the panel of patients there. With that number of prospective patients, a viable practice, possibly consisting of two doctors, could be based at the health centre. Unfortunately, the medical profession, both locally and nationally, has acted in such a way as to prevent any doctor from holding surgeries at the health centre.
In the debate on 24 November 1972 the then Minister, the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), indicated the view of the Department that the best hope of getting an additional surgery on the estate was by the recruitment of an additional partner to one of the practices operating at Ferrybridge, which could then open a branch surgery at the health centre. I was not aware of any efforts made by that practice, which then consisted of Drs. Walton, Busson and Atkins, to recruit an additional partner during the following five years, but apparently their intention to do so remained.
In a meeting arranged with the chairman of the Wakefield AHA to discuss this problem with representatives of relevant local committees on 23 June 1978, the then chairman of the local medical committee for the Wakefield area, Dr. L. C. Grahame, of Badsworth, near Pontefract, assured me that the same practice, now consisting of Drs. Walton, Atkins and Gupta, was still anxious to recruit a fourth partner with a view to opening a branch surgery at the health centre on the Warwick estate.
That encouragement was fortified when I learnt that, with effect from 1 August 1978, a fourth partner had been recruited to the practice—a lady by the name of Dr. C. A. Pinder. Through the family practitioner committee for the Wakefield area, I therefore asked when the enlarged practice would open a branch surgery at the health centre. The response from the practice, dated 11 September 1978, was a bald refusal, stating that it was not the intention, either then or in the near future, to extend the practice arrangements to include branch surgery facilities at the Warwick estate health centre. So far as I am aware, that practice has in no way expanded with the recruitment of the fourth partner, who is simply serving to take some of the normal work load which would have been carried by Dr. Walton and Dr. Atkins, who are apparently advancing in years. In the case of Dr. Atkins, he is not in good health.
The additional partner, whose recruitment was made possible simply because Knottingley was classified as an open area with fewer doctors per head of population than the national average, had been absorbed into the previous work of an ageing practice. It seems that I was misled by the chairman of the local medical committee, Dr. Grahame, when we met on 23 June 1978. I understand that he has since retired.
It is, of course, open to any of the other existing practices of Knottingley or Pontefract to commence health surgeries at the centre, because the two towns are grouped together for the purposes of medical manpower. I therefore approached the six local practices with that in mind. Because the average number of patients per doctor is markedly less in Pontefract than in Knottingley, it would be appropriate for a Pontefract practice

to open a branch surgery at the health centre.
Three of the six practices which I have approached have considered the position but find that they cannot expand their present practice arrangements. That includes the other Knottingley practice, which has the names of approximately 80 per cent. of the residents of the Warwick estate on its list of patients, but, for reasons which I do not find convincing, it is not willing to help its existing patients on the estate by holding branch surgeries there.
The members of other three practices in Ferrybridge and Pontefract—namely, Drs. Walton, Atkins and Gupta; Drs. Hough, Hewitt, Simpson and Smith; and Drs. Dewes, Kidd and Lewis—did not see fit even to reply to my letters on this subject, even though I enclosed prepaid reply envelopes for the last two of the practices that I have mentioned. Needless to say, my letters—of which I have copies here—were in friendly and reasonable terms.
Not only are the existing practices in the locality unwilling or unable to start a branch surgery at the health centre, but I am afraid that the recruitment of the fourth partner to the Ferrybridge practice has made it virtually impossible for any new practice to be set up based on the Warwick estate. This is because the addition of the doctor at Ferrybridge has so reduced the average number of patients per doctor in Knottingley and Ferrybridge that the classification of the area for medical manpower purposes has been altered from"open"to"intermediate ", and it would no longer be automatic for an application from a suitably qualified doctor to practise in the area to be approved.
The level of division between the two classes of area was raised by 100 patients per doctor in 1975. This means that Knottingley is now an intermediate area. According to a written answer given to me by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 5 March 1979 at column 498 of Hansard, applications to start new practices in intermediate areas are rarely granted. In any case, no such application in either an open or intermediate area could be approved with any additional financial allowance necessary to get a new practice off the ground while the list of


patients builds up. Such an allowance is available only for areas classed as"designated ", where the average number of patients per doctor, including the new doctor, still exceeds 2,500.
Together with interested organisations in Knottingley, I have explored the possibility of raising funds locally to meet the initial expenses of a doctor setting up a new practice at the health centre in the absence of an initial practice allowance. It was very disappointing to learn in a letter from my right hon. Friend that any general practitioner who accepted such a payment from voluntary sources would be in breach of his terms of service under paragraph 32 of the NHS (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1974. In other words, although it is legal and very common for a member of the medical profession to practise both within the NHS and privately, often seeing the same patients under both sets of arrangements, it is apparently illegal for a community that badly wants a doctor to offer some extra financial incentive to help one to set up a new practice.
What all this boils down to is that the profession of general medical practitioners, at both local and national levels, is able to exercise rigid, self-protective power in situations such as Knottingley to prevent the community from obtaining the general medical services that it clearly wishes to receive. The local practices are able to operate a boycott of the health centre, refusing even to consider holding branch surgeries there for a trial period. This boycott is operated with impunity, because the administrative arrangements for general practitioners within the NHS are designed to suit the convenience of the profession far more than the convenience of the public. As long as general practitioners retain the status of independent contractors, even though paid out of public funds, they will avoid being publicly accountable in the true sense of the term.
Of course, it is only a small minority of general practitioners who behave in an anti-social fashion. For instance, everywhere else in my constituency family doctors have happily moved into health centres built for their use. But I am afraid that the present structure

of the NHS helps and protects the antisocial minority among general practitioners.
I conclude by asking my right hon. Friend to consider pursuing three possible courses of action. First, will he consider amending the regulations of 1974, to which I have referred, to allow doctors to receive financial payments from public subscription in circumstances such as those I have described at Knottingley? Secondly, will he seek to reduce the dividing line between the open and intermediate classes of area for medical manpower purposes to what it was before 1975 so that Knottingley, for instance, would again become an open area? Thirdly, and more generally, will he use his influence wherever possible to make it less difficult for the thousands of my constituents who live on the Warwick estate to obtain the services of a general practitioner at this health centre, which was built for that purpose over 11 years ago right in the heart of their neighbourhood? Without some change in the situation in one of those ways, I am afraid that, reluctantly, at present I can see no way of making further progress towards a solution of this vexed problem.

11.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): For a number of years my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has argued on behalf of his constituents for a doctor or doctors to practise from the clinic set up in the health centre on the Warwick estate at Knottingley. He raised the matter a year ago in a Supply debate on the National Health Service. He has since written to me and my Department. He has asked questions in the House and he has been in contact with the chairman and secretary of the medical practices committee to seek a solution, and I think that the best service that I can perform for him this evening is not only to explain how the Government see the situation but to set the whole problem in context.
One has to start with the status of the general medical practitioner, who is, as my hon. Friend said, an independent contractor. He is not a salaried employee of my Department or the Health Service and is not subject to any management or


disciplinary controls as such. He provides general medical services in accordance with prescribed terms of service as set out in the appropriate National Health Service regulations, which are the general medical and pharmaceutical regulations 1974, as revised, and his contract is with his family practitioner committee.
That does not mean that there are no controls over the distribution of general medical practitioners. There are controls. They have existed since the NHS was set up, and I should like to explain how these controls operate because they have an important bearing on my hon. Friend's problem.
To provide general medical services under the National Health Service as a principal, a registered medical practitioner must first apply for admission to the medical list of the local family practitioner committee. That committee, after consulting its local medical committee, must refer the application to the medical practices committee.
That is now a national committee. It is empowered to refuse the application if it considers that the number of doctors already providing general medical services in the locality is adequate. By this control, the medical practices committee aims to prevent increases in the number of doctors in areas where there are sufficient doctors already and to encourage them to set up practice in the under-doctored areas. The committee is seeking to achieve an even distribution of doctors throughout England and Wales, so that everywhere patients will have reasonable access to a doctor.
To help the committee to judge the adequacy of the number of doctors, it divides the country into practice areas which it classifies according to the average number of patients per doctor. As my hon. Friend has already divined, the committee uses four classifications, designated, open—these are areas where applications to practise are normally granted—and intermediate or restricted areas. In those areas applications may be refused on the ground that the number of general medical practitioners already there is adequate.
There is another control exercised by the medical practices committee should a general medical practitioner in England and Wales resign or die. It is for the

committee to decide whether a vacancy should be filled. If there are sufficient doctors there, an existing practice may take over the patients, or patients may be advised to choose a new doctor from among those already there.
Classification of areas is always subject to change as new doctors come into an area. Those who retire may or may not be replaced.
When deciding individual applications, the medical practices committee endeavours not to be too rigid in applying the classification of area list size. It tries to take account of local circumstances after consulting the family practitioner committee, which is an important channel for identifying the local circumstances.
Knottingley is part of the Knottingley, Pontefract and Osgoldcross practice area and, as my hon. Friend said, for many years it was classified as an open area. This meant that a doctor wishing to set up there would have had his application granted by the medical practitioner committee. But there have been recent increases in the number of doctors practising there and the classification has been altered to intermediate. That means that an application to practise in Knottingley will not now necessarily succeed. So far no one has applied to practise there. If someone did apply and the medical practices committee refused the application, the doctor concerned would have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who would obviously have to consider, in deciding the appeal, the adequacy or otherwise of the existing manpower in the practice area.
I should make it clear that the medical practices committee is an independent body. It is not part of my Department. It comprises practitioners, with two lay members. It is a hard-working body and meets twice a week for 48 weeks of the year. The committee undertakes difficult work. It is not easy to tell a medical colleague that he may not practise where he wants to, but that is what a great deal of the work often involves. The committee deserves more credit than it generally receives.
I turn to the local circumstances which concern my hon. Friend. I recognise that for some people in the area the distance to the nearest doctor's surgery may be up


to two miles. This creates real problems, particularly for mothers with young children and for elderly or disabled people. In most parts of the country most people's homes are within less than a mile of a doctor's surgery, or, indeed, of several surgeries. But with just under 23,000 general practitioners to serve the whole of England and Wales it is not possible for everyone to have equally close geographical access.
The total number of doctors in general practice is steadily expanding. Doctors necessarily tend to be concentrated in relatively densely populated areas and close to locations to which people travel for other purposes. Some medical practices have branch surgeries and—this was the solution advocated by my hon. Friend—there must be compromises. The principle of taking the service to the patient may sometimes be in conflict with the ideal that all surgeries should have full equipment and full support from various services which form part of the primary care team. The family practitioner committee and the medical practices committee have these considerations in mind. They try to balance them, but it has not been possible to come up with an ideal solution in Knottingley and the Warwick estate.
The health premises on the Warwick estate already provide, of course, a wide range of health care. It was always intended to use them for mothercraft and relaxation classes, chiropody, speech therapy and baby clinics. These are in full swing. In addition, this centre provides a base and office for health visitors, home nurses and domiciliary midwives. A dental wing to replace old premises in Knottingley is being added and will provide new facilities which will be completed towards May.
I turn to the regulations that apply to the provision of services by individual practices. Doctors are independent contractors. They decide where they would like to practise and then proceed, as I have already explained, to obtain the approval of the medical practices committee in the area. The new doctor gives to the family practitioner committee details of the premises from which he proposes to practise, his surgery hours and the limits of his practice area. The family practitioner committee must consult the

local medical committee before it gives its decision. Approval cannot be unnecessarily withheld.
The doctor is responsible for providing his patients with general medical services at his surgery, at their homes or elsewhere in his practice area. When doctors in a practice are considering how many surgeries they should provide and where they should be, they should take full account of the needs of all their patients, but they cannot ignore the effect of their decisions on their own financial position.
They can expect to receive from the family practitioner committee a fair reimbursement of the rent and rates element and a proportion of the costs of their staff. The amount that they receive indirectly in this way for expenses varies broadly with the size of their practice, but not in accordance with their actual expenses. The profession as a whole accepts the drawbacks in this arrangement—which has an element of swings and roundabouts—as part of the price of maintaining its independent status. The same terms of service apply to a family doctor in a health centre, and he has freedom of choice in deciding where he sets up his surgery, whether that applies to a health centre or to the more traditional forms of surgery.
In general, health centres are not provided unless the local doctors have expressed an interest in working from them, and doctors are not legally committed to moving into the health centres when they are built. Doctors can change their minds. For example, while a health centre is being built there might be a change in the membership of a practice, which might affect the decision to move in. Other enforced changes in health practice, such as increases in proposed health centre charges or fears about jeopardising independence and security of tenure, may also persuade doctors during the construction period not to go ahead with their originally expressed intention of practising from the health centre.
In the Knottingley case, the four-doctor partnership which had expressed an interest in a health centre on the estate has been reduced to three doctors. It is accepted, as my hon. Friend said, that this partnership had said that it would consider working from the clinic if it got a fourth partner. It recruited a fourth partner in the middle of last year. The family


practitioner committee reminded the practice of its undertaking. In reply, the practice said that it had considered carefully the position but had decided against providing a branch surgery in the clinic.
I can well understand the disappointment of my hon. Friend at this outcome after all his endeavours and hard work. As I have tried to indicate, the initiative in these matters remains with the doctors. My hon. Friend will recall from previous correspondence between us that I was not aware of any failure by this practice to provide general medical services for patients living on the estate. It is generally a question of convenience and travelling time.
I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents on the Warwick estate and the difficulties which face, for example, young mothers having to make their way some distance to a doctor's surgery. I have no doubt that he was disappointed that the local partnership, when it got its additional partner, concluded that it was unable to open a branch surgery on the estate. The pattern

of general medical care is tending to group general medical practitioners in a pattern which provides better services for individuals on a more centralised basis and therefore involves some more travelling for the public.
Given this pattern of care and the need to use limited medical manpower to the best purpose, it is impossible to arrange for all residents within semi-urban areas to be within a mile of a surgery, convenient though that might be. If there is any comfort for my hon. Friend to take from the current situation, it will be from the knowledge that there has been some improvement recently in the number of doctors serving the locality—even if their distribution is somewhat distorted—and that the medical practices committee considers that Knottingley is now better supplied with doctors than many other parts of the country. That is cold comfort, I am afraid, but it is all I have to offer.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.